Robert Fripp's Diary

Joe the Prolific is ordering

21.43

A quiet day at World Central. Diane, back from DGM West Central, and David have the Devil Bug. David's temperature is 103F. Yow!

But a savage tickle for the day: our first shipments of "Deja VROOOM" have arrived!

Other reports: Steve Martin of The Agency in NY and I discussed possibilities of ProjeKct Zero touring the Mid-West in October; various tours for the ProjeKcts & Soundscapes; and my debut as a speaker. A `phone conversation yesterday evening has me committed to making a small contribution to a university course in England at the beginning of next year.

Guestbook Response & Question:

Rev. DOubt-GOat posts this: "If a recording process is non-invasive, i.e. invisible, how can the act of recording itself be considered a `violation of the performance?'".

If I read this correctly, the Rev. is equating invisibility and ineffectuality. That is, if an act cannot be seen it has no power and therefore no effect; even, presumably, in this case, where the unseen act is itself part of the process: the act of musicking. So, the statement seems to suggest that if a part of the process isn't / can't be seen, that part doesn't / can't change the process to which the part is (inevitably, necessarily) contributing.

If this is the intent of the Rev.'s statement, I find its import terrifying. This contradicts all my years of experience in public (and private) performance. But, in one sentence, the Rev. has clearly identified the area of my fundamental concern and argument:

The quality of presence and beingness, of any member of a group, significantly and qualitatively effects the presence and being of the group as a whole. I take this as a given. Who has any difficulty with this?

If a member is unaware of their contribution to the whole, their unawareness is itself a contribution and has significant effect on the group: the group is duller, blunter, less subtle, with less potential. The "unawareness" is itself a limitation on the group. This "unawareness" of the member's (inevitable) participation, as part of the group, is likely to be reflected in their conduct. If their conduct matches their knowing, they are likely to act inappropriately; then, the conduct / being / presence of the group is undermined and compromised, whether the individual unit knows this, is aware of this, or not.

The degree to which the group is compromised (in its conduct and integrity) depends upon several factors. In some groups, the responsibility to monitor possible damage done by a dull & blunt (i.e. potentially dangerous) member is given to a more experienced person; in some cases, this person is trained in techniques of repair & healing.

Few audiences in our contemporary (Western) musical culture appear to be this sophisticated, although smaller audiences sometimes act as if they have an instinctive or intuitive perception that this is, or may be, so. In "traditional" societies the sublteties involved in musicking are more acknowledged, accepted and part of a process in which the audience are not passive spectators, but contributors to the event.

If any audience is unable / unwilling to accept responsibility for itself as a whole, and contain out-of-tune resonances contributed by one or more of its individual parts, we may hope that the performer is able / willing to pick up the tab for the audience as well as for themself. In "traditional" performance the musician has a body of training & philosophy relatively unknown to the West; the musician is presumed to be a vehicle through which music flows: the musician is a trained conduit for music. But better yet the audience, in any culture or listening community, accept responsibility for itself, its conduct and presence; and allow the performer to address their own proper responsibilties. At which point, with responsible and present audience and performer, perhaps music may appear.

Where the "performer" is itself a group, all the above applies to the members of "the performer". A group forms in service to an aim. What is its common aim? But this is a large subject, and one which has probably exercised many visitors to this site.

Anyone generous enough to have taken an interest in my work over the years, who wonders about the strange difficulties of "keeping King Crimson together" and why the idea of a "Mass Reformation" appears to hold no interest for the spiky tyke, they may find a clue here.

Before I comment further, would the Rev. clarify his position, please?