A Mark In Time
Mark Knopfler Discussion => Mark Knopfler Discussion Forum => Topic started by: xxFordiexx on January 11, 2012, 10:39:08 PM
-
Just got notified about a free gig the Straits are performing soon. I don't want this to end up turning into an argument but it does still get my goat that Alan Clark said it was important to find someone to "do what Mark Knopfler did on stage".
I totally and utterly can appreciate what the Straits are doing but seriously, the Lead guitarist is no Mark Knopfler. Go listen to some youtube clips, trust me he's great but not as good.
Sorry to moan but it really riles me when Clark says it as if Mark was easy to replace in the first place. Knopfler is a unique artist.
Anyway, here's the link http://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/music/cruise-by-for-a-free-concert-by-the-straits-on-friday
-
Never mind, the whole Straits thing is as ridiculous as it was from day one...
LE
-
He also talks about the Mk heritage...
-
Never mind, the whole Straits thing is as ridiculous as it was from day one...
LE
True.... I Feel better now :)
-
As much as the concept might be ridiculos, The Straits sounds really great. If you have a chance, it is worth a couple of hours. When Alan and Chris opens the show with their intro to Private Investigations, it really could have been a Dire Straits concert. The new guitarist is of course not Mark, but we all know that. To see Alan and Chris for free? Yeah, sure...
-
As much as the concept might be ridiculos, The Straits sounds really great. If you have a chance, it is worth a couple of hours. When Alan and Chris opens the show with their intro to Private Investigations, it really could have been a Dire Straits concert. The new guitarist is of course not Mark, but we all know that. To see Alan and Chris for free? Yeah, sure...
That really was all I was meaning. I'm not at all denying that they sound good. I mean you've got a few world class musicians right there. I merely was irked somewhat, that Alan sounded very matter of fact about getting a replacement for Mark. Knopfler was the crux of Dire Straits and anyone who wants to copy him can only try. He is a unique craftsman not just with his exquisite guitaring but his vocal style too. Let's be honest its a great Tribute band and nothing else, Alan seems to believe different.
It's a bit like saying Queen is Queen with its current lineup....... I'm sorry, Queen is not complete without Freddie Mercury.
-
As much as the concept might be ridiculos, The Straits sounds really great. If you have a chance, it is worth a couple of hours. When Alan and Chris opens the show with their intro to Private Investigations, it really could have been a Dire Straits concert. The new guitarist is of course not Mark, but we all know that. To see Alan and Chris for free? Yeah, sure...
That really was all I was meaning. I'm not at all denying that they sound good. I mean you've got a few world class musicians right there. I merely was irked somewhat, that Alan sounded very matter of fact about getting a replacement for Mark. Knopfler was the crux of Dire Straits and anyone who wants to copy him can only try. He is a unique craftsman not just with his exquisite guitaring but his vocal style too. Let's be honest its a great Tribute band and nothing else, Alan seems to believe different.
It's a bit like saying Queen is Queen with its current lineup....... I'm sorry, Queen is not complete without Freddie Mercury.
I totally agree with you :)
-
Alan Clarke claims he has not spoken to MK about it. I am surprised that they can do it because of MK having all the rights to the music, lyrics and stuff.
The Straits are in a bit of a "grey area" here right (?)... Original members performing with something they have (in my opinion) a great deal of theoretical rights to, but nonetheless absolutely no official right to do. Unless Mk has said a silent "yes..do what you feel like..."
A coverband can do what they want, but these guys are mostly original members. I have never heard them but haven often thought about what they sound like, and how good they are.
Anyway, good luck to them, if they come to Denmark, I will be there :D
I am thinking loud now.... they should try to make another bandname for themselves, new music, their own lyrics, instead of just copy what they did 20 years ago.
But its easy I can imagine :P :o ??? 8) ;D
cheers peter
-
Thats my point when I say they are more than a tribute band... They were original members of the band, and at least two of them (Clark and White) helped creating many stuff (even they were not credited for it, because as Guy says, its their work...).
Actually I find funny "The Straits" name, because the lack of the "Dire" that its the composer, singer and lead guitar of the band.
;D
Ps/ I watch a video from this show and honestly, although Steve Ferrone has familiar connections with Alan Clark, they should replace him as drummer... Looks like hes playing other songs.
-
Alan Clarke claims he has not spoken to MK about it. I am surprised that they can do it because of MK having all the rights to the music, lyrics and stuff.
Guy mentioned on his site that they don't need permission. It appears to be fine as long as they don't specifically refer to themselves as Dire Straits, and I'm sure The Straits' management have done their legal homework before they set out to start the project. Clearly though, there is a line of respect here that has been crossed considering MK wrote everything that DS released.
-
Well I have stated my opinion on an other post and I still stick to it. The straits are surely a tribute band, in the sense that they try to recreate a sound of a group that has ceased to exist. The fact that at least 2 former members are playing, is an added bonus. What matters at the end is if the final outcome is worth listening. And the answer is a loud YES. We all miss DS sound and the straits sound is closer to that than MK's recent recorded music and concert sound.
That said, I would certainly prefer a DS re - union, even though I don't thing it would really mean anything to either the musicians or the average fan. (For the die hard fans like us, it is a different matter altogether, so we barely count). MK's sound, compositions and state of mind is so far from the sound of DS that asking from him to go back, is kind of looking down on him as a gifted composer and evolving guitarist and human. The achievements of the past can not be recreated because art no matter how good, fresh and for all times, has always strong links and ties to the original date it was created, while the artist always grows older and older. In my opinion, even if MK was in the straits, it would still be a tribute band. We would just have more excuses to overlook the simple fact, that we desire them to re create the past. MK's versions of DS songs are great and even if they are not as faithful as the versions of the straits, we have the familiar voice and guitar. It may sound far reaching, but it is almost a father-son (or daughter) relation. We grow old together, the father is always the same person, but the qualities he had as a young person and the child remembers, are all fading or already gone. Father is almost a synonym for God to the small child, but as the child is growing older the relation changes.
And yes, it would be interesting to see what Alan can do on his own, but with so much music all around, most probably it would go un-noticed, even if it was the best music around. There are numerous examples, with stronger credentials and good music output, that were eclipsed when the original main attraction left or died. See the Doors, Big brother and the holding company, Allman brothers, etc. So, he is a musician and even if his goal was just to make a living, he has every right as long as he shows respect. And I think he does, and that is why MK has no objections.
-
I am not too sure if MK can object. By virtue of the fact he has signed up to the PRS this allows his music to be played. As long as the appropriate licence is obtained this will indirectly generate royalties for him and supplement the mechanical sales of his works.
-
Its a similar situation when Roger Waters left Pink Floyd in 1985, Gilmour, Mason and Wright wanted to carry on as Pink Floyd, but they had to goto court to be able to use the name "Pink Floyd" as Roger said the group was a spent force musically, and the name should be put to bed, but as the other 3 wanted to carry on using the group name, they had to goto court to get it. Ok The Straits don't want to use the same same, but they are playing all DS songs and have a group name that is as close to the original as you can get. Personally I don't like the fact The Straits are playing these classic songs, because in my opinion no-one else can play the songs like Mark can.
-
MK could have said the word to bring this thing down. If he had said that he didn't like it, even if he didn't have the power to legally stop it, no fan would have attended. His silence speak volumes.
And Pink Floyd is a famous situation but hardly a fitting example. The three members were contributing as equal members up until Animals. And Gilmour up to The Wall and as executive producer on Final cut. And two of them were there right from the very beginning. They also wanted the name, while "the straits" never actually wanted it. They defined their existence as a tribute band by choosing this name.
And it is hard to admit, but MK's sound, no matter how unique, can be re-created to the note, tone and every other feature but his voice, by gifted musicians. As a matter of fact these musicians can play his DS parts more accurately than our man, since they can take them out of context and analyze them, without the emotional connections MK might have, just by date. But don't be fooled, they are evolving musicians that love this music, just like MK, even if they do it for money.
-
I
-
Interesting piece there, I guess the real thing is that we'll never know just how much input was given by the other band members. I've always been of the opinion that the songs evolved the most on tour anyway but then these changes could be anyones idea too.
An interesting case in though is why David left. Apparently not enough input into the songs or not getting his own songs on the albums. Says to me MK is very much a man who knows what he wants in the studio and allows little input from anyone. :-\
-
Very enlightening post jbaent! Thank you. On another thread I have written about the contributions of Alan Clark, on LOG, and the words coming from MK's mouth! Yet he did not receive any credit then, (and I wonder what kind of credit could he claim- orchestration? a small piano idea-segment deserves a full composition credit?) but it was the beginning and maybe Alan was trying to prove his value instead of asking what was owed. Of course as you say, it is a matter of perspective. MK works with the same ethics when he contributes to other albums. I don't think that on the numerous albums he has been contributing, anyone (except Steely Dan) has written his solos or licks, note for note, or at all. Yet he receives only credit for playing the guitar. So it is totally understood, if his work ethics are the same for his own compositions. And remember the Beatles? They wouldn't be the same without George Martin. I think that producing is very profitable and is a great credit, but on many occasions he actually contributed more on a songwriting level. He never asked for any because he believed that the first raw idea of a song was what mattered. So really, I have to side with MK on that.
Each person and band is a completely different story. We usually know only the stories from commercially successful bands. And the story there is always about money, fame, and making every other member pay and recognize the value of the contribution. And it is almost funny, because most of them started out sharing the credit, equally to all band members-exactly because they recognized the obvious- that each member adds something just by playing. I think U2 have such a relation, but I don't remember anyone else. But it is sad really, because successful bands that make such a lot of money, should be happy and not fighting for more. Music will make the world better...
And a little quiz: Oh , I had a dream last night. I woke up and I recorded a satisfying riff . And then took it to the studio and recorded it from my soul. And because it was so obvious what I did, later on I recorded another borrowed tune. No credit to the original composers and I got away with it. Who are we?
-
There are players who can play Mark's music note for note, but there is more to it than that, Mark puts so much more into playing the songs than anyone can, mainly because he wrote them, and its also just his way of playing guitar, he is an emotional and inventive guitar player, with one of the worlds greatest feels,touch,taste,etc, and that is a very hard thing to replicate.
-
Interesting piece there, I guess the real thing is that we'll never know just how much input was given by the other band members. I've always been of the opinion that the songs evolved the most on tour anyway but then these changes could be anyones idea too.
An interesting case in though is why David left. Apparently not enough input into the songs or not getting his own songs on the albums. Says to me MK is very much a man who knows what he wants in the studio and allows little input from anyone. :-\
I do agree with that. David left because he had plenty of his own songs and melodies but MK never wanted to use anything but his songs, so David frustrarion grew and grew until he left.
About inputs from anyone else, I think that keyboards melody on Walk of life or sax parts on Romeo, Sultans etc etc comes from Chris White, probably with some indications from MK, but I think the melodies that built that solos or parts came from the musicians themselfs.
-
Each person and band is a completely different story. We usually know only the stories from commercially successful bands. And the story there is always about money, fame, and making every other member pay and recognize the value of the contribution. And it is almost funny, because most of them started out sharing the credit, equally to all band members-exactly because they recognized the obvious- that each member adds something just by playing. I think U2 have such a relation, but I don't remember anyone else. But it is sad really, because successful bands that make such a lot of money, should be happy and not fighting for more. Music will make the world better...
I mentioned Led Zeppelin and Toto as two examples that comes to mind about sharing credits, every song has different credits depending on what everyone did, if there is a bass line, a drum groove, a keyboard part, a guitar solo whatever that the player wrote by themself for the song, he got the credit for it.
It also happened with Pink Floyd, actually as far as I remember, the beguining of the crisis in the band comes from the moment where Richard Wright didnt contribute in anything except playing, and the Roger Waters took control over the whole bandm giving just some credits to David Gilmour in some songs for some solos or riffs.
Its clear that when MK goes with the song, and the chords, its his song, but when someone add a very valueble part (like the keyboards melody of walk of life, which is what made the song famous) then you have something that might be credited. I dont know if Alan came with that melody, maybe it was MK
-
jbaent, I can't disagree with you, because there is truth and logic in what you say. I am only stating that since there is no binding written contract and it is all based in the vague ethical rules that each man accepts, such things are bound to happen. If I was in Alan's or David's shoes I would surely hate it and for good reason. But as I wrote before there is logic and consistency in MK's works ethics and contributions to other artists, so clearly it is a state of mind.
I really don't care about the whole thing from a moral point of view, because it is not out of the ordinary for the music business. And I also don't know how it works exactly. Music gets 50% lyrics 50%. So if someone writes a riff over somebody's music it is what 10%? Hard nut to crack. But your WoL example is good. On money for nothing a , a 6 note lift from Don't stand so close to me, (which could be avoided and left out-it is not the main attraction of the song) gave to Sting a 25% co-write of the song! I guess he had better management, lawyers and it was a good promotional tool since the Police were the no.1 group on the planet at the time they were recording.
Thank you too for the Bobby video. I don't recall hearing the song, but point taken. Even though Bobby doesn't look that hurt by the fact. So it is common practice in music business.
But with all this talk we may be giving validity to all those claiming they have written SOS or any other song!
-
But with all this talk we may be giving validity to all those claiming they have written SOS or any other song!
Actually we can give credits to Dave for rhytmic guitar lines, John for bass lines and Pick for the great groove he played for that song, apart of MK who wrote the lyrics, the main chords and the solos.
And talking live, I guess that the only creative add was the sax solo played by Chris White.
The other people are just crazy people ;D
-
That is exactly what I meant when I said I don't know how it works in the music business. I mean that the musicians that play on the recordings, get a small cut from every record sold or received air play. Isn't it that so? In a way it is a recognition for their contribution and efforts. Of course a bigger, fuller cut would be better, but it is the way of the world (of music business) ;D
And sometimes the crazy people are not that crazy. Since you mention Led Zeppelin, Willie Dixon, Minnie and a couple of others that claimed authorship and won the case, just happened to have solid evidence. (OK far fetched, I know) :P
-
I might be wrong but wasn't Setting Me Up quite different from the final studio version after someone (not in DS) recommend they rearrange it. I think it was slower, but it shows MK writes all the songs but doesn't always do all the fixtures and fittings.
-
I guess this was the work of Muff Winwood.
-
A brief conundrum.
Whose house is it? The architects, the builders or the expert ceiling painter that put on those magnificent finishing touches that really made it what it is?
Or is it perhaps the person who commissioned it? :)
-
A brief conundrum.
Whose house is it? The architects, the builders or the expert ceiling painter that put on those magnificent finishing touches that really made it what it is?
Or is it perhaps the person who commissioned it? :)
The person with the deed in his ..or her hand..which in this case..would be Mark ;)
-
Yes, it is a hard nut to crack as I said. And it is very old indeed. Art and craft. But then we get intellectual craft? Genius craftsmanship? How much can such a man add to the original plan/blueprint? Would he be able to create something from square one, something original, or he can only assist-suggest-work with someone else's original material? And then how can we evaluate in monetary terms his assistance? If he knows the deal, gets paid a fixed price and agrees to do the job, there is no need to deny him the ideas, but surely when the credit for it has to be in the form of co-writing a song, it is a different deal altogether. Alan Parsons made a career after the genius work in Dark side of the moon, a real boost for his personal career both as producer - engineer and later for his group.
Let me put it differently: If MK recorded acoustic versions of all his songs, alone with his guitar, we wouldn't have any of this page long discussions. Maybe he wouldn't have made it big, but his sole authorship would be hard to deny. I mean, take "All along the watchtower". A fantastic Dylan song, that Jimi took it to stratospheric heights. Even Dylan recognized the genius interpretation and tried to imitate it. Now tell me, if Jimi used a different set of lyrics, what is the resemblance between the two tracks? The solos, take up half of the song, the better half, but in the end only one gets the songwriters credit: Dylan. Was Jimi stupid, not to put his name too? Led Zeppelin used to put their names along with the original composers name, on many many songs, and as a matter of fact on most of them after the first pressing and with a court order. Dylan on the other hand rips ideas from original folk or blues songs and gets away with it. But that is a whole other story.
So it is the original idea that counts, for a good reason. See also another thing. When MK writes a song, he always declares it to the songwriters association, even if it never sees the light of day. If you look it up there are dozens of songs declared that were never released, some that were probably released under a different name and quite a few that were released years after they were declared. It is music, not photography, not architecture not painting. Different rules apply.
And I still see the point from Alan or David or Chris. (at least the ones we suppose they have...)
-
A brief conundrum.
Whose house is it? The architects, the builders or the expert ceiling painter that put on those magnificent finishing touches that really made it what it is?
Or is it perhaps the person who commissioned it? :)
Comparation betwen houses, vegetables, tables etc etc dont work for those who claims about music rights, the infamous SGAE in Spain, or other asociations that try to get money for the music when it got played at a radio, tv, shops, etc...
-
a strange thing is that when Dire Straits was a "band", Mark was more "authoritarian" than he is in his solo career
I mean that the 96ers have more "liberty" to add their ideas, than the DS members in the 80ies
I'd say that synth lines on Coyote or you don't know you're born are Guy's ideas and add a lot ot the songs
I'm pretty sure that the WOL synth lead part is Mark's idea, but played and "arranged" by Guy (Alan is more on the hammond's part)
I agree that Alan Clark contributed a lot to DS music, it's obvious on LOG album, and during 80-81 and 82-83 tours.
Does it mean he must have been "credited" I don't have the response
As all you said, its' hard to determine who "compose" a song
And sometimes, you have the contrary : a song is credited by all the band, and only one musician have composed it :
Horizons by Genesis on Foxtrot (1972) is credited by all the band, but is obviously a Steve Hackett composition
All songs credited Lennon-MacCartney are obviously not composed by the two writers
So the credits thing is of course due to money issue.
Sometimes, it's easier to register the whole band, sometimes, it's easier to register just one musician.
And Yes Led Zep is very accurate in his credits, but even in this case it's common said by their fans, and rock's critrics, that Jones' work on many songs was underrated
e.g. Stairway to heaven is credited only by Page and Plant, but Jones added of course greats ideas to the song : intro on flute (and not on mellotron), keyboard part during the whole song, etc...
I'm in the same situation now.....
Yes, my 13' daughter compose and write songs.....
We recorded the first one this week.
I arranged it : I add chords she never thought about, I add some bars, I suggested her two different rhythms (4/4 or 6/8) I even add a small musical part with differents chords from the chorus and the verses, I played all the intruments.....
but she came with the lyrics, the melody, and the whole "feeling" of the song
well, do you think I must ask some royalties to my daughter ? ;D
I will think to this....
-
[quote author=Jean-Fran
-
The thing with intellectual rights is it is all about the lyrics and/or melody. Chord progressions are not subject to copyright. So MK writes the song, comes up with melody and whatever anyone contributes after that - unless they change the lyrics or melody the song is still 100% MKs. That is how the music industry works.
-
The thing with intellectual rights is it is all about the lyrics and/or melody. Chord progressions are not subject to copyright. So MK writes the song, comes up with melody and whatever anyone contributes after that - unless they change the lyrics or melody the song is still 100% MKs. That is how the music industry works.
Well, thats in legal terms.
In moral terms, if you create and added something, you and everybody involved knows that you added a part that comes from you. The fact that there is not any law that protect you, doesnt means its not true.
At least, thats my point of view. When you create culture (and music is culture, although its taxed differently to the books) its not the same that when you built a house or a table...
-
But Guy et al are not contributing to the lyrics or the melody, merely the arrangement and arrangements are not covered by copyright to the same extent as lyrics and melody are.
Morals do not enter into any business. No company ever excelled by having moral standards. All forms of captialism is cut throat - dog eat dog so to speak.
And I am sure Mk is the same. He wouldn't give away any of his works freely if it meant costing him financially and that is not a criticism of him - it is how the world turns.
On another note - song titles can not be copyrighted either. I could write a song and call it Sultans of Swing if I wanted and no one could do a single thing about it. Copyright obviously exists to keep lawyers in work:-)
-
The thing with intellectual rights is it is all about the lyrics and/or melody. Chord progressions are not subject to copyright. So MK writes the song, comes up with melody and whatever anyone contributes after that - unless they change the lyrics or melody the song is still 100% MKs. That is how the music industry works.
Well, thats in legal terms.
In moral terms, if you create and added something, you and everybody involved knows that you added a part that comes from you. The fact that there is not any law that protect you, doesnt means its not true.
At least, thats my point of view. When you create culture (and music is culture, although its taxed differently to the books) its not the same that when you built a house or a table...
That is true and I am sure that MK says to Guy and the lads - 'hey do you want a credit on the album or a few grand extra in your pay packets?' and I think I know the anser:-)