My musical day began with listening to the RF personal DAT - band on the left, RF on the right - and discovering parts I'd forgotten. Some parts I've improved on since the recording.
The Team are in, but firstly to check the e-mail.
Excerpted from an e-letter to Sid:
<In terms of the malignant Fripp: to me the first aims are / were the music & the group. It took huge amounts of energy to get us to any particular show, and then for the show to be spoiled (or ruined) by someone's primary / equal concern with booze, drugs or women was unacceptable to me. If you want to party, fine: after the show. Maybe I'll join you!Also, to spoil a show by considering oneself to be the main (or only) focus of attention & playing accordingly - too loud or to the gallery - is & was unacceptable. Some of this was drug driven, some was not.
And, however much you might like to avoid it, you will be unable to accurately assess & present KC history without a consideration of substance abuse and its effects on members, managers & roadies. You need not be judgemental, and in any case much of this has already been mentioned in public. Everyone was younger; the pressures were enormous; the temptations were considerable. But, judgementalism & criticism aside, the subject awaits your consideration. From the 1981 Crim on, I have not been prepared to enter a working relationship where substance abuse is a regular feature of professional life. This limits the possibilities drastically!
So, if the Sidney Smith is interested in the detailed history of Crimson on the ground, the interactions of personalities, all you have to do is figure out names. You don't have to publish them, but you must know them to have a grasp of the history. Knowing some of the history of personality clashes, and why they occurred, you may then be better able to make reliable judgements on unlikely moments of Crimson's tortured history.
There is an important point for you to discover about KC - it also eluded many of the members. You may discover this by looking at the work of post-Crimson members. If someone was exceptional, pioneering, innovative, etc., in KC but their subsequent work seems less convincing, you have to be able to present a convincing explanation as to why. Like, is this primarily:
1. Something to do with KC?
2. Something to do with the individual?
If a character's subsequent work after Crim doesn't convince you, what would this suggest to you? To me, it's obvious (nor a reflection on the individual).>
21.37
During today's playing King Crimson came to visit. Simply, the musicians playing became King Crimson. I nearly wept.
We are examining the parts from the album & changing them where translation to live performance makes the point clearer. Today, notably on "FraKctured". When recording began, the aim was to reproduce live performance. Now, 100 years later, live performance (mainly) aims to reproduce recorded performance.
And, on the subject of live performance, I've been invited to sit in with Bobby Weir, in town on Sunday. This invitation is an honour. It's unlikely for me as a current player, but I hope to go along and cheer loudly.
Responses to the Guestbook:
1. <While out trolling on e-bay I've come across "Russian" CD pressings of Earthbound and USA. I presume these have nothing to do with EG or DGM and are bootleg versions of the LP's.>
Complete piracy.
2. <I think it's real nifty that folks are already selling (promotional? CD-R?) copies of TCOL on eBay. Being a professional musician seems like a cool, high-paying job. Where do I sign up?>
Is this ironic?
3. <A commercial model that is different must still be first and foremost a commercial model--else, why bother trying to do business at all? Better to follow Mr. Muir into the monastery.>
"Act in the market place and remain free of the values of the market place".
Retreat from the world is one approach. Another is to use the world as one's school of learning: a retreat into the world, as it were.
The poster's comments demonstrate basement logic. For example, a commercial model is by definition a model for action within a world of commerce. But it is not necessarily "commercial" in intent. That is, the aim of the model may not be commercial "first & foremost". And the model may only be commercial as a pretence; for example: for the operation to hide behind a shield of trading. If we know that someone is consumed with greed, avarice & venality (like myself) we feel safe with them: they can be bought. This person presents no challenges or threats to the consensus. I hope DGM makes a fortune for DGM, its artists & Venal Leader.
One poster suggested DGM might become acquire charitable status. This is wildly unlikely. The Red Lion House (1986-89) considered acquiring the status of a charitable trust. Our friendly bank manager told me: "For `trust' read minefield". So, we proceeded as a profit-inspired commercial teaching system for the next three years. Profit maximisation was an easier concept to convey, grasp and implement than the spirit of Guitar Craft.
This poster regularly sends examples of dopey thinking. Is this deliberate, I wonder? As with <2> above, I often find it hard to tell whether comments are intended to be taken as given.
4. <I hope Sid's book works out, if only to help DGM's bank balance.>
How can this benefit DGM? We're not publishing the book. And the book is unlikely to make money: publishing royalties resemble record royalties in this respect.
"We begin again, constantly."
