1. The DGM Artist Letter of Understanding.
This is freely available as a model for whoever finds it useful. However, you should be warned that a record company such as DGM is not a career option. A record company is only worth the value of its copyright holdings in the records it releases. If you believe that artists own the copyright in their work, you will necessarily decline to increase the value of your company. This means you will not have anything to sell at the end of a period of work, and that your income will be mainly determined by the public's support for the music you release.
If you post ethical business aims you will be attacked whenever your conduct is at variance with what your customers believe / assume / expect to be appropriate behaviour for an ethical company. This is regardless of whether they are informed, or not, of the reasoning behind your decisions. So, be ready to deal with charges of hypocrisy & venality. In time, when you have learned to live your life out loud, you may learn to turn this hositlity to your personal advantage. This requires subtlety, perseverance, a personal practice, and a willingness to embrace a life of discomfort.
2. The DGM / Microsoft Controversy.
Many visiting Guests appear to have marginally more enthusiasm for Bill Gates & Miscrosoft than I have for SG Alder Esq. & the EG Group of Companies.
I support anyone who, as a matter of personal conviction, feels they must withdraw their patronage from DGM because of our use of Media 4.0. This providing only that their action, proceeding from principle, is thoroughgoing. That is, they must themselves forswear all use of Microsoft products and all DGM products, most notably the download of "Mexico City".
Perhaps the actions or gesture of one person, sitting at home & seemingly far-removed from influence & corridors of power, may seem to them hopeless or futile. This is not my view. A small act of principle, of decision (which is an act of will), is not governed by the World of Quantities. I refused to buy South African fruit during the apartheid regime, & Chilean wine before democracy. (I am also aware that, paradoxically, I may have been denying wages to the same people I was nominally supporting). Let's face it, this wasn't much of a protest and I didn't suffer a great deal of hardship as a consequence. But these were two tiny acts of principle which, along with many other tiny & larger acts, helped bring about democracy on two continents. (We'll assume that's a good thing). So, if you act on principle it will ultimately benefit us all.
Morality stems from the perception that we are all the same person (and from this, that all life is one). The study of ethics, moral behaviour, seeks to establish principles of conduct which acknowledge that, yes, while we are the same person we live in different bodies & under conditions which are not ideal. If any of us profess to act in accordance with principles, even ethical aims, we shall inevitably be attacked. Those who know us best are well aware of our personal flaws. Those who know us not at all recognise in us all the weaknesses & flaws which are part of their own characters.
The rule here is to hold a healthy scepticism towards anything which is presented to us. This is constructive. Cynicism is the perception in ourselves that we fail to achieve in ourselves what we know to be possible. Then, we turn this on the world around us & assume / presume that the world is as flawed as we are ourselves. This assumption is partly correct: the world IS as flawed as ourselves, and is made perfect only to the degree that in our personal living we undertake to serve perfection. We are not asked to be perfect: we are asked to achieve the possible. This is our right as human beings; this is our obligation as human beings. This is also a gift, an act of grace. If we undertake to serve what is possible, mysteriously, help appears. If we allow gravity, the weight of cynicism, to take hold, help remains available but we don't recognise it when it whispers in our ear. We don't recognise it because we lack generosity in ourselves. Lacking generosity in ourselves, we are blind to it in others.
Visitors are already well aware that the Venal Leader is also Heartless & Raging. Not only that, he doesn't listen to unsolicited tapes which a nice lady (new to the DGM office) suggested he would, and respond in a fulsome & generous fashion with detailed critique & encouragement. To this growing litany of well-described failings, Peter Sinfield's post to the Guestbook last week suggests that hypocrisy might be added to the list.
Peter quotes several Guitar Craft aphorisms & suggests that this "gentleman doth protest too much". This is part of an ongoing critical correspondence, some of which has appeared in the Diary. Clearly, Peter is unable to attribute to myself the particular qualities most desirable in an Ethical Leader. A further protest too far for Peter might be this: to date the CEO of DGM has received no salary (please see warning to aspirant ethically-based independent record companies above). Peter seems to see in me hypocrisy, and perhaps by his quoting of the aphorisms, a failed idealism. Peter knows me from our work together between 1968-1972, so his judgement is a warning to those who might otherwise be suckered into ethical "protestation".
I have been unable to merit Peter's approval, or win his confidence, in many of my decisions & choices since c. July 1970. His recent posting therefore holds no surprise that my more recent decisions & choices similarly fail to meet with his approval. Another founder Crim, Ian McDonald (ET 605), sees revenge as part of the Diarist's character (Ted White recently discovered another version of this story). What does surprise me is that both Peter & Ian were, until fairly recently, both eager and/or willing to reform the original King Crimson with myself as guitarist, despite their insights into my character.
I am also unable to deny the many & various failings which have been attributed to me, by Peter, Ian & many others. I don't believe that anyone who has spent 25 years sitting on the floor observing their inner processes can accept with any satisfaction what they see & learn of their nature. But since I see in others what I know most truly in myself, I accept the implication that what I have seen of my nature is that Fripp is deeply flawed. But to accept that, and lie down with it as an excuse for inaction, is a lifetime cop-out. (This concern lead me to Mr. Bennett & Sherborne House). So, I adopt Iago's dictum: "Assume the virtue if ye have it not". Even in an imperfect & materialist world, I choose to believe in Mother Christmas.
3. DGM Live's "Strategic Relationship" With Microsoft.
I
DGM is not in bed with Microsoft but we are using one of their pillowcases.
MP3 is, famously, "bigger than sex" & has pioneered music use on the net. At least hundreds (probably thousands) of companies are currently investigating ways in which the net may be used for the distribution of music. David Singleton has imagined one particular aspect of this which is uniquely his insight, & which DGM Live is pursuing. The clock is ticking on who will be able to establish their own approach on the ground floor of the next generation of technology.
There are several formats available for sound distribution, notably MP3 & Real Audio. DGM has no substantial or effective relationship with either of these companies. We do have a very good relationship with Microsoft, in the person of Steve Ball.
My own approach to business is to deal with people, not the institutions which house them. Ken Berry, the global head of Virgin music, is astonishingly straightforward to deal with, even to accept strongly presented criticisms of the company he manages. Declan Colgan remains one of the very few A&R people of my acquaintance who is passionate about music, & who works to reconcile the disparity between artist & record company. I immensely dislike BMG Music, an institution I find artist-unfriendly, & my dealings with them in dispute failed to reflect the straightforward approach of Virgin (Ken Berry). Another hero: John Kennedy OBE, former artist-friendly solicitor is now head of Polygram UK.
Steve Ball is a member of the Seattle Guitar Circle, a longtime Crafty whose life was redirected (to a degree) when he saw KC at Carbondale in 1981. Steve was a lengthy visitor to the Red Lion House (1986-89), a directing force in Guitar Craft Services, member of The League of Crafty Guitarists, & designer of the LCG & Discipline knotworks (among others & in which he holds the copyright). Steve is in the position of investigating music applications on the net for Microsoft and, fortunately for DGM Live, has taken an interest in David Singleton's ideas.
While DGM Live was researching available formats, we learnt through Steve of Microsoft's upcoming release of Media 4.0 with its finer spec than available on MP3. Microsoft for their part have been very helpful & supportive, providing a great deal of advice on how to address the details of operating a net-based music distribution company. So, DGM Live's opportunity was superior technology, its timely launch, the support of a major-player company in the form of an old compadre, Gringo Steve, and all this without charge & without contract.
II
The next question may be, will this "strategic relationship" corrupt DGM? One possible answer is, well, wait & see. Another possible question is, will the relationship lead Microsoft to post the DGM Business Aims on its masthead? This is more interesting to me (whatver the likelihood) & leads to the next question: what is RF / DGM's approach to working with large multinationals? A more interesting, & richer approach to this question, is this: how do any of us work with people / institutions which we know / believe to be flawed?
A brief history of personal alternating stategies:
1969 Engagement from within a new generation of the music industry - management, agency, record company. In 1969 it seemed entirely possible that the power of (rock) music could change the world. This current didn't make it into 1970 (in my opinion) and by 1974 the current had gone well off course. Disheartened , I left the industry with no intention of returning.
1974 Disengagement: Sherborne House.
1977 Re-engagement from within: 1977 returned gradually from "retirement" in New York, through production, Frippertronics, The League of Gentlemen & King Crimson. But the "new generation" had grown older with success & drugs.
1984 Disengagement: Claymont Court, Guitar Craft.
1991 Re-engagement from outside: warfare with EG until September 1997.
DGM begins in 1992.
Peter Sinfield ends his post to the Guestbook by leaving "to talk to the wind". This is an inspired poetic encapsualtion of the Romantic side of 1960s idealism & the "alternative" culture: "dropping out". That's one approach. Another approach is to drop in. I recall that when talking to the wind "my words are all carried away" & "the wind does not hear". So, as a means of engaging with the world to bring about gradual & effective change, Peter's strategy is unlikely to succeed. Peter talks to the wind; DGM talks to Microsoft (and others), Virgin, Pony Canyon (and others).
Temperamentally, I'm with Peter (although I talk to trees, and they do respond). But by choice & conviction, I'm with DGM, KC & GC.
I maintain a respectful distance from institutions, while seeking to make contact with the people who work within those institutions (except those within their legal departments). For example, the institutions of the Christian church/es seem to hold a very different position to what I am able to intuit as the intentions of the founder. But inside the walls of the church, the spirit continues to move (I believe) despite the institutionalised context within which the action takes place. The action takes place within the people, not the institutions. Or, more accurately, the action takes place between the people within a network / community / congregation (and despite those people rather more than because of them).
The comments of both Peter & Ian, their insights into my flawed nature and the light these comments casts on all of us, paints a dismal picture of three members of the original Crimson; enough to suggest that the first KC was unlikely to succeed, artistically, aesthetically, economically. And yet despite the foibles, weaknesses, animosities & limitations of the members of that remarkable group, something exceptional occurred. Despite the people. I attribute this to the promptings of our Good Fairy, however (as adults) we might interpret the utter benevolence of that impulse which came into the lives of particular young men in a specific time & place.
So, do I have faith in those young men? No. Do I have faith in the "institution" which they founded? No. Do I have faith in the inexpressible grace of the creative current which acted through Michael, Ian, Greg, Peter & Robert & their "institution"? This is not a question which I have to answer. But to you, the reader of this Diary, I ask: what drew you to King Crimson? Why are you here?
III
Will King Crimson, DGM or Guitar Craft make me hugely wealthy? Wildly unlikely, but where there is faith nothing is impossible. Will DGM Live's "strategic relationship" with Microsoft (more accurately, our use of their technology) make us hugely rich? Well, I hope so. David & Diane have both worked too hard for too long for too little. Their children anticipate their parents provision of food, housing, clothing & education. And for myself, I find no satisfaction in being the Raging Heartless Hypocritical & Vengeful Venal Leader of a company which is chronically underfinanced.
This then turns to the moral & ethical questions surrounding money (cf. Jacob Needleman's recent writings). My own position on money use has been posted before. Briefly, the unanticipated arrival of large sums of money is an opportunity which carries with it a responsibility. Members of ELP, Genesis & Yes have all earned hugely larger sums of money than I have as a member of KC. Peter Sinfield has also, as a succesful songwriter for Celine Dion, earned far larger sums than myself in recent years. None of this should be seen to imply criticism. The unanticipated arrival of large sums of cash have meant for me:
i) Time & space; to pursue my education & discharge my responsibilities;
ii) The opportunity to support various ventures which otherwise may not have happened, or whose operations would have been prejudiced.
My personal wealth derives from the increase in monetary value of domestic property in the UK. I drive an L registration Vauxhall (GM obviously), I have never had a holiday with my wife (other than 3-4 day visits to various places) & my personal extravagance is my library. And home. Which, although isn't an "investment", I am well aware is my only personal "asset".
IV
This may attract criticism from those who see a little too much "protestation", those who seize opportunities to vent their negativity rather than accept responsibility for their own feeling lives, as well as those who see genuine flaws in our position & offer positive criticisms to help us move closer to right conduct.
- Positive criticism is clean: there is no "side" to it, no nastiness or peevishness which infuses the commentary. Two views:
1. Karl Popper's, that "criticism is the cutting edge of rationality & the growth of knowledge" (Paul Levinson p.121). To which I add: but only when impartially offered with the spirit of goodwill;
2. The Robert Christgau approach to criticism: why allow facts to interrupt the smooth broadcasting of a fondly held opinion?
If an impartial critic wishes to form a judgement on the operations of DGM & its failing leader then better to do so on the basis of information.
"In naming myself, I recognise who I am."
