Marillion

[lonestar]

I do believe the promoter takes a good deal of the gate, and pays the artists a guaranteed flat rate, that way the artists doens't take the risk of losing money off low ticket sales. (not that that would be an issues with Marillion)


I'm in the group now, so was able to scroll through the comments. Lot's of mental gymnastics by fans trying to math it out, and Lucy politely shooting their theories down. Makes me more resigned to the fact I'll never see them live again.

[Stadler]

I do believe the promoter takes a good deal of the gate, and pays the artists a guaranteed flat rate, that way the artists doens't take the risk of losing money off low ticket sales. (not that that would be an issues with Marillion)


I'm in the group now, so was able to scroll through the comments. Lot's of mental gymnastics by fans trying to math it out, and Lucy politely shooting their theories down. Makes me more resigned to the fact I'll never see them live again.

I know a guy at the Mohegan Sun, and it's different depending on the artist and the tour.   They have what's called "The Wolf Den", which is free (but only about 300 seats; the idea is to get people into the casino) and that's all flat rate.  Then for the arena, it's dependent on the artist.  Bruce wants a flat rate, he pays the band and the bands equipment, the arena pays everything else. Bruce is big enough, though, that he set limits on the ticket prices too.   Prince basically rented out the arena, and handled everything, from ticketing to march to the band.   So basically he paid THEM a flat rate. 

I think it varies.  I'm not in the Facebook group, so I don't know what questions are being asked, but again, I think it's a matter of will.  I love Marillion, I really do, but I've had this idea about them for several years now; they're just set in their ways and if they can't do it their way, they don't do it.  Fair enough, but own it (which, to be fair, she quasi- sort of does, by acknowledging that the band WON'T (not can't, won't) fly coach and WON'T (not can't, won't) shop hotels.)

[lonestar]

The band is of course free to do whatever they want, and I don't blame them for wanting to turn a buck and do it in their style. There's more than enough shows to spend my money on.

I did notice in the comments that the tour they were speculating on with these numbers would've been all east coast dates anyways, so either way I would've been fucked.

[HOF]

I think it varies.  I'm not in the Facebook group, so I don't know what questions are being asked, but again, I think it's a matter of will.  I love Marillion, I really do, but I've had this idea about them for several years now; they're just set in their ways and if they can't do it their way, they don't do it.  Fair enough, but own it (which, to be fair, she quasi- sort of does, by acknowledging that the band WON'T (not can't, won't) fly coach and WON'T (not can't, won't) shop hotels.

No, I think that is right and more or less something Lucy admits. They aren’t willing to cut those corners, and maybe people like Hackett are. Neal Morse probably travels with minimal crew, gear, and production, and maybe he’s willing to take a loss to do it. A lot of bands are willing to take losses for the exposure aspect of touring (Big Big Train always lose money touring), but at the stage of their career Marillion probably don’t feel the need to do that. 

[ytserush]

I keep seeing questions about a US tour so thought I would lay it all on the line.
Here is an example of a tour I was trying to work out recently - only 6 dates in the US.  We were offered $250,000.00. Sounds good right?
Now lets take away the costs...
$37,500.00 - 15% witholding tax
$25,000.00 - 10% payment to our agent
$25,000.00 - hotels - we take a lot of crew and we don't expect them to share rooms.  And we don't stay in Motel 8s
$30,000.00 - Tour bus
$10,000.00 - truck
$4,000.00 - PDS for band and crew
$37,200.00 - crew wages (it costs us $3,100.00 per day and crew get paid on days off)
$10,000.00 - Visas - and that's if the price doesn't increase as they are threatening to do)
$10,000.00 - Tax accountants - even to get the tax reduced to 15% down from 30% costs us a fortune to do
$20,000.00 - Flights the band travel business class and the crew in economy
$10,000.00 - there is ALWAYS things that are unaccounted for
$15,000.00 - Extra PA and Lights - the venues don't always have what the band want to put on the show you are used to
$20,000.00 - Shipping of Equipment - the band always want to use their own instruments.
Total Expenditure (and many of these are estimates and might be even higher) $252,700.00
So this six date tour would make us LOSE $2700.00
Yes we can sell merchandise but all the venues also want 30% commission on merch sales.
None of these calculations take into consideration my time spent organising everything and taking me away from doing other jobs (for example I remember organising the 45 dates of the Marbles tour in the UK and EU took me half as long in my time as to work out as the 10 date US tour.)
'But how can Hackett, Riverside etc etc tour the US' - Well my answer is I don't know because I am not them.  Maybe they rely on their merch sales, maybe they have record company help.  Maybe they stay in cheap hotels and fly economy and used hired gear.  Maybe they get higher offers to start with.  I am only answering what our position is.  We would LOVE to come back to the US, but the way things are at the moment I can't see this changing.  It doesn't mean forever, but it does mean for now.  If only the boys had cracked America in the 80s we might have stood a chance!
Thanks for taking the time to read this.  x

Sounds reasonable to me. I can't see these guys hopping in a mini van with a skeleton crew at this stage especially given their consistency with top notch performances. Way too many variables at risk if you cut corners. Like I said, at this point it's a Montreal/USA Weekend or a Farewell tour.  It's the same reason why Fish is done in the US too and I think he's got a lower overhead.

[ytserush]

I don't know.  As she writes, "I'm not them".    But six shows, in 2,500 seat theaters, at $75 per ticket is $1,125,000 gross. I know there are fees.  I know you have to pay for the venues.  I get it. But Marillion have always made me shake my head a bit at the business side of things. I know they are pioneers on the crowd-funding, blah, blah, blah.

But how does Neal Morse do it?   The only things that are different from that list and Neal are the Visas, and some percentage of the flights (they don't all have to fly from the UK to the US, but they DO have to fly from wherever they are to the starting point). 

And why not package with someone?  NOT FISH - they both have said that's not going to happen, so let's not even moot that - but why not have a double-headlining tour like so many American bands do? 

I feel like "if there's a will there's a way", and there isn't the will, frankly.

Marillion are a brand at this point. I don't know if I'd pay to see them on a double/triple bill (unless the right combination of bands are involved - and they won't be because this is me and I can't see Marillion going out with The Fixx and Joe Jackson for example.) I'd even be up for an opening band if they were good. But that is by far not my preferred choice and while the ticket would be more expensive for promoters I doubt Marillion would see much of a financial benefit from that.  I think by this point Marillion know their audience.

I don't know if Neal Morse knows or cares about the business side very much and I think he just wants to play his music live so there may be different motivating factors here so it's not apples to apples.

[ytserush]

I do believe the promoter takes a good deal of the gate, and pays the artists a guaranteed flat rate, that way the artists doens't take the risk of losing money off low ticket sales. (not that that would be an issues with Marillion)


I'm in the group now, so was able to scroll through the comments. Lot's of mental gymnastics by fans trying to math it out, and Lucy politely shooting their theories down. Makes me more resigned to the fact I'll never see them live again.

I know a guy at the Mohegan Sun, and it's different depending on the artist and the tour.   They have what's called "The Wolf Den", which is free (but only about 300 seats; the idea is to get people into the casino) and that's all flat rate.  Then for the arena, it's dependent on the artist.  Bruce wants a flat rate, he pays the band and the bands equipment, the arena pays everything else. Bruce is big enough, though, that he set limits on the ticket prices too.   Prince basically rented out the arena, and handled everything, from ticketing to march to the band.   So basically he paid THEM a flat rate. 

I think it varies.  I'm not in the Facebook group, so I don't know what questions are being asked, but again, I think it's a matter of will.  I love Marillion, I really do, but I've had this idea about them for several years now; they're just set in their ways and if they can't do it their way, they don't do it.  Fair enough, but own it (which, to be fair, she quasi- sort of does, by acknowledging that the band WON'T (not can't, won't) fly coach and WON'T (not can't, won't) shop hotels.)

I would bet money that Marillion would not be playing in a casino. Since they left a major label they have always done things their way. It's not a secret.

[ytserush]

The band is of course free to do whatever they want, and I don't blame them for wanting to turn a buck and do it in their style. There's more than enough shows to spend my money on.

I did notice in the comments that the tour they were speculating on with these numbers would've been all east coast dates anyways, so either way I would've been fucked.

I think if there is a farewell tour Chicago and LA are in the mix along with the east coast. We might have one more shot at it in maybe 5 to 7 years.  I'm bummed Rothery hasn't brought his band here. Closest he came was Mexico. I might go to Canada to see Rothery's band. At this point, I think I'd rather see them than Marillion.

[lonestar]

The band is of course free to do whatever they want, and I don't blame them for wanting to turn a buck and do it in their style. There's more than enough shows to spend my money on.

I did notice in the comments that the tour they were speculating on with these numbers would've been all east coast dates anyways, so either way I would've been fucked.

I think if there is a farewell tour Chicago and LA are in the mix along with the east coast. We might have one more shot at it in maybe 5 to 7 years.  I'm bummed Rothery hasn't brought his band here. Closest he came was Mexico. I might go to Canada to see Rothery's band. At this point, I think I'd rather see them than Marillion.

At this point I'm just resigned to never seeing them or IQ again. No biggie, I got 6 shows between the two, and there's an infinite amount of bands to see.

[Stadler]

Side bar, though not really, if you think about it a little, I ripped the Blu-ray from the Seasons End deluxe, and lo and behold, they had the three videos from the singles:  Uninvited Guest, Hooks In You, and Easter.

Don't tell me that Marillion didn't want to be stars.  Don't ever tell me that Marillion didn't want to be big stars.  The Uninvited Guest was okay, but Easter would have been a lot better if they didn't dress up as U2 for the video (nice hat, Bono, I mean, Steve; It's amazing that Ireland looks so much like Joshua Tree National Park) and the Hooks In You was a popularity grab with a capital "popularity".  Every cliche in the book, and for what?  I bet the price of the box set that Steve didn't own that Jackson he was playing. 

[King Puppies and the Acid Guppies]

The band is of course free to do whatever they want, and I don't blame them for wanting to turn a buck and do it in their style. There's more than enough shows to spend my money on.

I did notice in the comments that the tour they were speculating on with these numbers would've been all east coast dates anyways, so either way I would've been fucked.

I think if there is a farewell tour Chicago and LA are in the mix along with the east coast. We might have one more shot at it in maybe 5 to 7 years.  I'm bummed Rothery hasn't brought his band here. Closest he came was Mexico. I might go to Canada to see Rothery's band. At this point, I think I'd rather see them than Marillion.

At this point I'm just resigned to never seeing them or IQ again. No biggie, I got 6 shows between the two, and there's an infinite amount of bands to see.

I've never had the opportunity to see Marillion. I've always wanted to go to one of the Marillion Weekends. I almost sprung for Cruise to the Edge 2024 since they are on the bill for that, along with a lot of other amazing bands, but I couldn't get my wife on board with a concert cruise....oh well.

[lonestar]

The band is of course free to do whatever they want, and I don't blame them for wanting to turn a buck and do it in their style. There's more than enough shows to spend my money on.

I did notice in the comments that the tour they were speculating on with these numbers would've been all east coast dates anyways, so either way I would've been fucked.

I think if there is a farewell tour Chicago and LA are in the mix along with the east coast. We might have one more shot at it in maybe 5 to 7 years.  I'm bummed Rothery hasn't brought his band here. Closest he came was Mexico. I might go to Canada to see Rothery's band. At this point, I think I'd rather see them than Marillion.

At this point I'm just resigned to never seeing them or IQ again. No biggie, I got 6 shows between the two, and there's an infinite amount of bands to see.

I've never had the opportunity to see Marillion. I've always wanted to go to one of the Marillion Weekends. I almost sprung for Cruise to the Edge 2024 since they are on the bill for that, along with a lot of other amazing bands, but I couldn't get my wife on board with a concert cruise....oh well.

I think I'd lean towards CTTE over a Weekend, just because of all the extra bands that'd be there.

[Stadler]

The band is of course free to do whatever they want, and I don't blame them for wanting to turn a buck and do it in their style. There's more than enough shows to spend my money on.

I did notice in the comments that the tour they were speculating on with these numbers would've been all east coast dates anyways, so either way I would've been fucked.

I think if there is a farewell tour Chicago and LA are in the mix along with the east coast. We might have one more shot at it in maybe 5 to 7 years.  I'm bummed Rothery hasn't brought his band here. Closest he came was Mexico. I might go to Canada to see Rothery's band. At this point, I think I'd rather see them than Marillion.

At this point I'm just resigned to never seeing them or IQ again. No biggie, I got 6 shows between the two, and there's an infinite amount of bands to see.

I've never had the opportunity to see Marillion. I've always wanted to go to one of the Marillion Weekends. I almost sprung for Cruise to the Edge 2024 since they are on the bill for that, along with a lot of other amazing bands, but I couldn't get my wife on board with a concert cruise....oh well.

I will say this: Marillion is one of those few bands for whom the setlist almost doesn't matter.  I saw the FEAR tour, and while that is far from my favorite album and they played a lot of it, I still loved the show. I cried - actual, real tears - during Neverland.

[lonestar]

The band is of course free to do whatever they want, and I don't blame them for wanting to turn a buck and do it in their style. There's more than enough shows to spend my money on.

I did notice in the comments that the tour they were speculating on with these numbers would've been all east coast dates anyways, so either way I would've been fucked.

I think if there is a farewell tour Chicago and LA are in the mix along with the east coast. We might have one more shot at it in maybe 5 to 7 years.  I'm bummed Rothery hasn't brought his band here. Closest he came was Mexico. I might go to Canada to see Rothery's band. At this point, I think I'd rather see them than Marillion.

At this point I'm just resigned to never seeing them or IQ again. No biggie, I got 6 shows between the two, and there's an infinite amount of bands to see.

I've never had the opportunity to see Marillion. I've always wanted to go to one of the Marillion Weekends. I almost sprung for Cruise to the Edge 2024 since they are on the bill for that, along with a lot of other amazing bands, but I couldn't get my wife on board with a concert cruise....oh well.

I will say this: Marillion is one of those few bands for whom the setlist almost doesn't matter.  I saw the FEAR tour, and while that is far from my favorite album and they played a lot of it, I still loved the show. I cried - actual, real tears - during Neverland.

Yeah, the SF set for that tour was ridiculous...not only was there no Fish era stuff, but they didn't do anything earlier than Afraid of Sunlight, but as you said, I was just grateful to be on the rail for Marillion, nothing else really mattered. And  of course, they absolutely crushed the performance.

[ytserush]

Side bar, though not really, if you think about it a little, I ripped the Blu-ray from the Seasons End deluxe, and lo and behold, they had the three videos from the singles:  Uninvited Guest, Hooks In You, and Easter.

Don't tell me that Marillion didn't want to be stars.  Don't ever tell me that Marillion didn't want to be big stars.  The Uninvited Guest was okay, but Easter would have been a lot better if they didn't dress up as U2 for the video (nice hat, Bono, I mean, Steve; It's amazing that Ireland looks so much like Joshua Tree National Park) and the Hooks In You was a popularity grab with a capital "popularity".  Every cliche in the book, and for what?  I bet the price of the box set that Steve didn't own that Jackson he was playing.

Not sure if you're serious, but all of that window dressing was likely the label or video director's idea. I doubt the band owned anything  that wasn't related to the music in that video. Okay, well maybe Hogarth owned something.....

[Stadler]

Side bar, though not really, if you think about it a little, I ripped the Blu-ray from the Seasons End deluxe, and lo and behold, they had the three videos from the singles:  Uninvited Guest, Hooks In You, and Easter.

Don't tell me that Marillion didn't want to be stars.  Don't ever tell me that Marillion didn't want to be big stars.  The Uninvited Guest was okay, but Easter would have been a lot better if they didn't dress up as U2 for the video (nice hat, Bono, I mean, Steve; It's amazing that Ireland looks so much like Joshua Tree National Park) and the Hooks In You was a popularity grab with a capital "popularity".  Every cliche in the book, and for what?  I bet the price of the box set that Steve didn't own that Jackson he was playing.

Not sure if you're serious, but all of that window dressing was likely the label or video director's idea. I doubt the band owned anything  that wasn't related to the music in that video. Okay, well maybe Hogarth owned something.....

Well, I am, though while I'm serious, I'm not bagging on them for it.  It IS their career. But for all the talk about "we do what we want!" and "we're in it for the music!", there are a LOT of stories in the band's career about them yearning for the very success they also sometimes say "they don't want".   Fish too, if you listen to the Fish on Fridays (I'm just catching up; I'm around August of 2020 now, haha!). 

If you saw that video for "Hooks In You" without knowing, I think the rest of the catalogue would be a surprise.  That is almost NOTHING like the band that I've seen five times and countless more times on video.  I get it, it's a promo, but you can have a promo and have it be true to who you are as a band.

[HOF]

If you hear H talk about it, he’ll admit that when he first joined the band he wanted to be a rock star and to have the same level of success in Marillion that Fish did, and it bothered him for some time that he didn’t. But he’ll claim the other guys had more of a “we’ve been there before and it’s not all it’s cracked up to be” attitude about it. I think the image stuff in those videos was like 95% just marketing by EMI wanting to sell records (although H probably was happy to play the part).

But I also think the “we do what we want” attitude is something that really started more with Brave (which also pretty much ended their relationship with EMI). Prior to that, I think EMI had some hopes of promoting H as more of a pop frontman, which lead to Holidays in Eden, but that was short lived.  And then by the time you get to Afraid of Sunlight you have H writing about the pitfalls of fame and the self destructive lifestyles that often accompany it, which I think was partly his way of coping with the fact that he was never going to be a Bono type of rock star.

[jammindude]

Re: Hooks in You

I know the video comes across as a promo and it is quite catchy and a bit “single” sounding.

But I heard it in the car on it’s own merits a few days ago and it immediately occurred to me that the song itself doesn’t strike me as being any *more* “radio friendly” than say…Incommunicado.

[HOF]

Re: Hooks in You

I know the video comes across as a promo and it is quite catchy and a bit “single” sounding.

But I heard it in the car on it’s own merits a few days ago and it immediately occurred to me that the song itself doesn’t strike me as being any *more* “radio friendly” than say…Incommunicado.

It’s almost the same song musically, just a little bit more aggressive guitar tone and less widdly keyboards. Quite different lyrically of course.

[SoundscapeMN]

yeah I've always heard the similarities between Hooks In You and Incommunicado.

Incommunicado I find is a superior track in many ways though.

[Lowdz]

I've always loved both songs. A few more like that and I wouldn't have drifted away from Marillion as I did. I have now seen the error of my ways and enjoy most of their SH era albums.

[Stadler]

Don't get me wrong: I LOVE Hooks In You.  It's a great song (though other than "it has a guitar riff" I see no similarities with Incommunicado). That's not the point.   I can say "well, find me another "Hooks In You" in the catalogue, and you can. For the sake of argument, I'll give you that Incommunicado is one (and it was a single, back in the day); Separated Out is another.  There are a couple moments on Brave that would work. 

I'm talking about the video.   You can't find another picture of Steve Rothery in that get up, with that guitar, ANYWHERE. He and Pete throwing shapes; in the Lorely video, I'm not sure Pete moves more than three feet in any direction, and he's MOBILE compared to Steve.  The crowds with the perpetual overhead arm clap; I've seen Marillion and Fish combined about 12 times and I've never seen that once ever at a show.

I just think it's a fine line between success and failure, and it's a little disingenuous to say "we're not interested' when you clearly are (or were).  The liner notes in the Holidays Deluxe version is really the first admission that there was some "lust" there.   Kayleigh was always sort of pointed at as an albatross, but they were talking about "hit singles" up through Afraid of Sunlight, which was a decade later (Fish, on "Fish On Fridays" often does the "doot doot doo..." sarcastically to refer to trading on past glories).

[ytserush]

Side bar, though not really, if you think about it a little, I ripped the Blu-ray from the Seasons End deluxe, and lo and behold, they had the three videos from the singles:  Uninvited Guest, Hooks In You, and Easter.

Don't tell me that Marillion didn't want to be stars.  Don't ever tell me that Marillion didn't want to be big stars.  The Uninvited Guest was okay, but Easter would have been a lot better if they didn't dress up as U2 for the video (nice hat, Bono, I mean, Steve; It's amazing that Ireland looks so much like Joshua Tree National Park) and the Hooks In You was a popularity grab with a capital "popularity".  Every cliche in the book, and for what?  I bet the price of the box set that Steve didn't own that Jackson he was playing.

Not sure if you're serious, but all of that window dressing was likely the label or video director's idea. I doubt the band owned anything  that wasn't related to the music in that video. Okay, well maybe Hogarth owned something.....

Well, I am, though while I'm serious, I'm not bagging on them for it.  It IS their career. But for all the talk about "we do what we want!" and "we're in it for the music!", there are a LOT of stories in the band's career about them yearning for the very success they also sometimes say "they don't want".   Fish too, if you listen to the Fish on Fridays (I'm just catching up; I'm around August of 2020 now, haha!). 

If you saw that video for "Hooks In You" without knowing, I think the rest of the catalogue would be a surprise.  That is almost NOTHING like the band that I've seen five times and countless more times on video.  I get it, it's a promo, but you can have a promo and have it be true to who you are as a band.

That was a critical point and the record label were trying to protect their investment. I will say that I found Hogarth to be pretty over the top live in those years. He settled down around This Strange Engine.

But yeah, "Hooks In You" is a pretty unrepresentative for a video (and even a song) and I'd still bet money that they were following EMI's orders on that.  I'm sure that is documented somewhere. I'll pull on the Jon Collins book. There's a decent chance it's mentioned in there.

[ytserush]

If you hear H talk about it, he’ll admit that when he first joined the band he wanted to be a rock star and to have the same level of success in Marillion that Fish did, and it bothered him for some time that he didn’t. But he’ll claim the other guys had more of a “we’ve been there before and it’s not all it’s cracked up to be” attitude about it. I think the image stuff in those videos was like 95% just marketing by EMI wanting to sell records (although H probably was happy to play the part).

But I also think the “we do what we want” attitude is something that really started more with Brave (which also pretty much ended their relationship with EMI). Prior to that, I think EMI had some hopes of promoting H as more of a pop frontman, which lead to Holidays in Eden, but that was short lived.  And then by the time you get to Afraid of Sunlight you have H writing about the pitfalls of fame and the self destructive lifestyles that often accompany it, which I think was partly his way of coping with the fact that he was never going to be a Bono type of rock star.

That's a pretty good summary. Not much to add. Things really solidified in that way when they built their studio and formed their own label to handle everything in-house. They were rebels before that too, but it got too big and they really lost control after Misplaced Childhood.

[ytserush]

Re: Hooks in You

I know the video comes across as a promo and it is quite catchy and a bit “single” sounding.

But I heard it in the car on it’s own merits a few days ago and it immediately occurred to me that the song itself doesn’t strike me as being any *more* “radio friendly” than say…Incommunicado.

There's a stark contrast between the videos.  Incommunicado is a total spoof worthy of Genesis. (They have similar points of view regarding making videos At least during the Fish years) But the music? Yeah there's a similarity.

[ytserush]

Don't get me wrong: I LOVE Hooks In You.  It's a great song (though other than "it has a guitar riff" I see no similarities with Incommunicado). That's not the point.   I can say "well, find me another "Hooks In You" in the catalogue, and you can. For the sake of argument, I'll give you that Incommunicado is one (and it was a single, back in the day); Separated Out is another.  There are a couple moments on Brave that would work. 

I'm talking about the video.   You can't find another picture of Steve Rothery in that get up, with that guitar, ANYWHERE. He and Pete throwing shapes; in the Lorely video, I'm not sure Pete moves more than three feet in any direction, and he's MOBILE compared to Steve.  The crowds with the perpetual overhead arm clap; I've seen Marillion and Fish combined about 12 times and I've never seen that once ever at a show.

I just think it's a fine line between success and failure, and it's a little disingenuous to say "we're not interested' when you clearly are (or were).  The liner notes in the Holidays Deluxe version is really the first admission that there was some "lust" there.   Kayleigh was always sort of pointed at as an albatross, but they were talking about "hit singles" up through Afraid of Sunlight, which was a decade later (Fish, on "Fish On Fridays" often does the "doot doot doo..." sarcastically to refer to trading on past glories).

Notice that Marillion was dropped after Afraid of Sunlight. Sure Marillion wanted commercial success. But , like Rush, they wanted it on "their" terms. Especially after having gone through that the first time.

Yeah, Fish is a riot on Fridays. I almost never listen live. Usually catch it that night or the following day. Could be watching again this time tomorrow. Surprisingly, I think he may have doubled his fan base in the three years he's done this. A lot of people seem to have no clue that he released as many albums as he did and usually plays a few tracks each week which seem to have gotten exposure. I kind of find it interesting from a marketing point of view. He's always been DIY but doing this seems to have built a community similar to what Marillion has. I find it fascinating.

[Stadler]

I'm still back in like August/September of 2020 (He hadn't officially released Weltschmerz yet).   I'll make it through eventually. 

I notice in recent episodes he's been talking more openly about being on the spectrum, too.  News to me (and honestly, while I believe him, he doesn't totally present that way to me, but then again, I'm not a licensed therapist).

[ytserush]

I'm still back in like August/September of 2020 (He hadn't officially released Weltschmerz yet).   I'll make it through eventually. 

I notice in recent episodes he's been talking more openly about being on the spectrum, too.  News to me (and honestly, while I believe him, he doesn't totally present that way to me, but then again, I'm not a licensed therapist).

You're still in the disco bog, vermin charlie and "Where's the bloody remote?" era. Comedy gold! I love watching him every week. Just finished  this week's episode before I go  out an mow the lawn. I won't spoil it, but it wasn't bad.  He was pretty consistent with his shows back then too. He's cut back to maybe 2 or 3 times a month because of various issues. I've noticed he has to cool down a bit before he can discuss things that happen during the week. Most of those seem to be business related. So he might skip an episode if something makes him furious and you hear about it the following week after the dust settles.

[Stadler]

I'm still back in like August/September of 2020 (He hadn't officially released Weltschmerz yet).   I'll make it through eventually. 

I notice in recent episodes he's been talking more openly about being on the spectrum, too.  News to me (and honestly, while I believe him, he doesn't totally present that way to me, but then again, I'm not a licensed therapist).

You're still in the disco bog, vermin charlie and "Where's the bloody remote?" era. Comedy gold! I love watching him every week. Just finished  this week's episode before I go  out an mow the lawn. I won't spoil it, but it wasn't bad.  He was pretty consistent with his shows back then too. He's cut back to maybe 2 or 3 times a month because of various issues. I've noticed he has to cool down a bit before he can discuss things that happen during the week. Most of those seem to be business related. So he might skip an episode if something makes him furious and you hear about it the following week after the dust settles.

Will I find out what's the deal with the Vigil and Innocent Exile remasters?  Even back then he was banging on EMI about getting the license to Vigil.   

[ytserush]

I'm still back in like August/September of 2020 (He hadn't officially released Weltschmerz yet).   I'll make it through eventually. 

I notice in recent episodes he's been talking more openly about being on the spectrum, too.  News to me (and honestly, while I believe him, he doesn't totally present that way to me, but then again, I'm not a licensed therapist).

You're still in the disco bog, vermin charlie and "Where's the bloody remote?" era. Comedy gold! I love watching him every week. Just finished  this week's episode before I go  out an mow the lawn. I won't spoil it, but it wasn't bad.  He was pretty consistent with his shows back then too. He's cut back to maybe 2 or 3 times a month because of various issues. I've noticed he has to cool down a bit before he can discuss things that happen during the week. Most of those seem to be business related. So he might skip an episode if something makes him furious and you hear about it the following week after the dust settles.

Will I find out what's the deal with the Vigil and Innocent Exile remasters?  Even back then he was banging on EMI about getting the license to Vigil.

Yes you will. It's a bit like a soap opera without the opera. Warner's gobbled up EMI which makes licensing a tad more bureaucratic. Hopefully that's not too much of a spoiler.



Also, for what it's worth, Marillion is looking into a limited repressing both of the Misplaced and Clutching Deluxe Editions. They'll be more expensive than they were (about 50 pounds) and way less than the aftermarket and speculators seem to be charging.

[Stadler]

I'm still back in like August/September of 2020 (He hadn't officially released Weltschmerz yet).   I'll make it through eventually. 

I notice in recent episodes he's been talking more openly about being on the spectrum, too.  News to me (and honestly, while I believe him, he doesn't totally present that way to me, but then again, I'm not a licensed therapist).

You're still in the disco bog, vermin charlie and "Where's the bloody remote?" era. Comedy gold! I love watching him every week. Just finished  this week's episode before I go  out an mow the lawn. I won't spoil it, but it wasn't bad.  He was pretty consistent with his shows back then too. He's cut back to maybe 2 or 3 times a month because of various issues. I've noticed he has to cool down a bit before he can discuss things that happen during the week. Most of those seem to be business related. So he might skip an episode if something makes him furious and you hear about it the following week after the dust settles.

Will I find out what's the deal with the Vigil and Innocent Exile remasters?  Even back then he was banging on EMI about getting the license to Vigil.

Yes you will. It's a bit like a soap opera without the opera. Warner's gobbled up EMI which makes licensing a tad more bureaucratic. Hopefully that's not too much of a spoiler.

NO, I'm LOOKING for spoilers.   I've been listening from back to front, about three or so episodes per week (I'm at 31).   I'm seriously debating on alternating the most recent and one or two past, the most recent and one or two past, in order to catch up.

Also, for what it's worth, Marillion is looking into a limited repressing both of the Misplaced and Clutching Deluxe Editions. They'll be more expensive than they were (about 50 pounds) and way less than the aftermarket and speculators seem to be charging.

I saw that; I'd LOVE for them to add "Brave" to that list; I'd gladly pay 50 pounds for that.

[ytserush]

NO, I'm LOOKING for spoilers.   I've been listening from back to front, about three or so episodes per week (I'm at 31).   I'm seriously debating on alternating the most recent and one or two past, the most recent and one or two past, in order to catch up.

Well I wouldn't do that myself for contextual reasons but there are huge chunks of episodes that don't depend on what came before.

Spoilers: Both Vigil and Internal Exile still not out yet. He's been dealing with some medical issues. Final tour still up in the air. He's going to be moving off of the grid. He'll be writing his autobiography after he moves. He pulled the plug on his garden website. He's been using the show to preview his new releases.


We just got the 13th Star Deluxe. Haven't cracked it open yet. Ordered Monday, Arrived Saturday.  Must have had a tail wind.  Had a few Marillion releases that took about a week, but I think this is a record from overseas.

[Stadler]

I order the 13th Star remix/remaster too and it's en route.  Pretty excited. 

I don't know if this is the place or not, but anyone have a Songs From The Mirror Remaster they'd be willing to part with for a reasonable price?

[ytserush]

I order the 13th Star remix/remaster too and it's en route.  Pretty excited. 

I don't know if this is the place or not, but anyone have a Songs From The Mirror Remaster they'd be willing to part with for a reasonable price?

The 13th Star Reissue is awesome. A lot of it has already been previously released but the remixes, new doc and the demos are awesome!

Which version? I'd probably keep the original and most recent Deluxe but I might part with the first remaster. Just need to check if there's something on there that's not on anything else. I don't THINK there is.

[Stadler]

I order the 13th Star remix/remaster too and it's en route.  Pretty excited. 

I don't know if this is the place or not, but anyone have a Songs From The Mirror Remaster they'd be willing to part with for a reasonable price?

The 13th Star Reissue is awesome. A lot of it has already been previously released but the remixes, new doc and the demos are awesome!

Which version? I'd probably keep the original and most recent Deluxe but I might part with the first remaster. Just need to check if there's something on there that's not on anything else. I don't THINK there is.

No, looking for the recent remaster, the three CD deluxe version.  I'm actually looking for both Suits and Songs From The Mirror deluxe versions.  Fish complains about them being resold on eBay, but he's out of stock (and I get it, it costs money to float those and I can't imagine he's still selling 10's of thousands of them).