The sound onstage was loud, very different from the soundcheck & not always easy to follow but - hey! - this is what live is like & the band enjoyed the show. We're getting better at responding to dropped beats & half-beats, sudden shifts in direction & impossible hearing. Mistakes but not train wrecks tonight.
To Tape Or Not To Tape: What Is The Question?
The issue of taping is already underway in the DGM Diaries, as it impinges upon The California Guitar Trio.
Here are three views from artists: Paul Richards, Mike Kenneally & Phish; and one from writer & thinker John Perry Barlow, whose considered view is part of a series of papers from the Harvard Law School. I have personal connections to, or with, all of these people, hold them in fond respect & continue to learn from each of them. I reproduce their publicly posted views here. Reciprocally, my own views are available for reproduction in the same spirit. I quote excerpts from a recent piece by JPB in the New York Times.
Also included are the views of two audients. Jay Kirby has difficulty believing that photography might affect a performance; Ron Abbott feels it is acceptable to record King Crimson, despite a request not to do so & in the knowledge that this is non-consensual, and then make the recording publicly available.
Jay Kirby <[email protected]>
Ron Abbott <[email protected]>
Monday 15th. May, 2000
Here is an email of particular interest that I received and following is my reply:
Hello, Sorry to bother you; I am wondering what the official policy is on taping performances of the CGT for personal use. Thanks for your time,Hello -------,
Thanks for your inquiry. The official policy of the CGT on taping is that we'd rather you didn't.
Firstly, it is the difference between "giving" and "taking". I can assure you that the experience of those who come to a concert to "give" their attention to the music and the performance and those who come to "take" away an illegal recording of the concert is quite different. And in a subtle way (many times not so subtle), it effects the whole performance. Many concert attendees are ignorant of how much their presence (or lack of) effects the musicians on stage and the overall musical event. Each person in the room can contribute to (or take away from) the quality of the performance. From my own experience, I can tell you that there is a huge difference performing for an audience of supportive listeners rather than a room full those more interested in "taking" rather than "giving". The mind of the person who is taping the show is more occupied with details like: "Is my tape recording functioning properly?" "Do I need to change the tape?", "Is my microphone in a good position to capture the best sound?" "I hope the people chatting next to me won't ruin my recording." And their intent in taping the show is to "take" something away from it. Sure, you might go home with a very mediocre quality recording of the music, but at what expense? This is the difference between a musical event that can soar with the angels, or one that is chained to the ground by expectations and ill intentions.
Secondly, the CGT has already been subject of would be profiteers who have bootlegged CGT performances and offered them for sale on the Internet. I am glad to see that the CGT has reached the status that our bootleg recordings have value on the Internet, but saddened to see someone else trying to make a profit off of our work.
The bottom line is, regardless of whether it is for your personal use or not, it is stealing. The CGT has copyrights to all recordings of CGT music. If you record our shows without permission, you are stealing from us. People may argue that this sort of stealing hasn't hurt bands like Phish and the Grateful Dead or the many other bands that may encourage taping, but that is for them to decide and we are not like Phish or the Grateful Dead. This type of stealing effects us and the performance on many different levels.
Currently, the CGT does not have the security team or the energy to put into getting people to not record the shows. We simply ask that you come to our shows to experience the magic of live music and leave your tape recorders at home. For those interested in owning recordings of CGT live, our last two releases "An Opening Act" and "Rocks the West" are both recorded live and far better quality than any bootlegger could manage. We are planning on releasing more live recording in the future as we generally record most of our shows with high quality recording equipment. Also, Bootlegtv.com has just filmed our recent show in Seattle with Tony Levin for release in the near future. So, come and enjoy the show, and leave the recording and distribution of our recordings to us.
Thanks, Paul Richards.
Tuesday 16th. May, 2000
It seems my diary post from yesterday 5/15 has stirred up some controversy on the Pathways egroup list (you can join the Pathways group via a link on the cgtrio.com site). The issues surrounding the act of taping are very complex with many seeming contradictions. The following message, taken from another news list was posted to the Pathways group:
"Let me give you a graphic example of how this free music thing works for me... I just received a live, unauthorized, stolen intellectual property, CD of the California Guitar Trio. It is stolen and the band didnt make a penny on my getting my hands on it, NOR did their record company. I LOVE IT, NO I MEAN I LOVE THIS MUSIC.... I just went to cdnow.com and ordered ALL their cds 5 of them... And I would like to encourage you all to do the same... I would like to thank the individual (thief) who stole it and sent it to me.. I am sure that a few people on our fair list have received same stolen music. It is some very , very good music..""By the virtue of the fact that I received this music, and was able to become familiar with it.. I just spent $80.00.. That money will go directly to the hands of their record company and eventually (if they have a decent contract) get to them. So who was really harmed by me getting a bootleg copy of their show...???? No ONE thats who... Did they allow this taping of their show..?? I have no idea. If they did, did they think that it would help them sell CDs...? Probably... Or bring more people to their shows. Most definately.I gonna go the next time they come to town..Some one send me dates, I know that Ive seen em posted here. The exclusivity of this issue is that you cant get it without paying for it. Well, if ther product is that good, it will sell itself.."
I am happy to hear that this individual was turned onto our music and bought five of our CDs. As I see it, there are three separate acts here:
1. The stealing of our music by unauthorized recording.
2. The illegal copying and distribution of our music.
3. The act of turning someone previously unfamiliar with the CGT, onto our music.
The third act is the only one that I can concur with. One may argue that the 3rd act may not have happened without the first two, but I would argue that many, many of our fans achieve the same results from CDs purchased at our shows or at their local CD shop. Every night at our performances I sign multiple CDs purchased by someone who says that they have bought one for themselves and 3 more as gifts. Many thanks to all of you who have done exactly this. This type of goodwill and support is what helps keep the CGT going. Without it, we would have been gone a long time ago.
Wednesday 17th. May, 2000
Another argument posted on the Pathways egroup concerning the taping at CGT shows suggests that our officially released "live" recordings are too studio like. And that the reason people like bootleg recordings is that they like to hear the entire performance with all the audience banter, talk from the performers and all that goes with it. This gave me an idea. The CGT records most every show with very high quality recording gear and high end microphones. It might be feasible for us to take one or two of the best shows from each tour, in their entirety, with all the audience banter, with all the mistakes and so on and make them available on CD via our website. I have already made the necessary contacts to set this into motion. In the beginning we could only afford to do select shows, but as we proceeded I could see the possibility of making more and more shows available, even as downloads via the Internet. At the moment, we do have an entire show available for download on the cgtrio.com site for free. This is from our most recent show at the Boulder Theater with Tony Levin. The audio is not CD quality, and the video isn't so great, but it is a step towards making our live material available without people having come to the shows and steal it from us.
It is this act of stealing that is the real issue for me about taping. The intent to come to a show and take something that isn't yours is disturbing and detracts from the energy of the show. This is a very subtle thing. And most people who tape seem to make justifications and just don't seem to get it. But music is a very subtle thing and the energies that flow at a musical event are very subtle indeed. People may argue about this all day long, and the fact that many artist allow taping and even encourage it doesn't make it right. All this said, no one has ever been "busted" for taping at a CGT show. As I said before, we are not actively trying to stop the tapers. I don't think that anyone needs to be worried about being "busted" for taping at our shows. It is very simple, if you ask us if you can tape, and really want to know how we feel about it, you know the answer. If you choose to go against our wishes and tape our shows, that is up to you.
Mike Keneally
http://www.keneally.com/keneally27.html
Official MK/BFD Taping Policy
Hey, Keneally here. Some of the CDs that fans are manufacturing as a result of the touring we've been doing are outrageously good. I'm still thrilled that everyone is so interested, and I believe that none of the fans are into the distribution of the music for personal monetary gain (yet), but I also envision the likelihood of that changing at some point. It's nigh-well impossible to regulate bootlegging, and I'm not naive enough to think that I can, but now seems like a good time to put my feelings about taping and distribution concretely into the public record.
Mike Keneally's Guidelines and Etiquette for Tapers and CD-Burners
It has been and will continue to be MK's policy to treat his fans with the respect they deserve, because they have such bloody good taste in music, and to condone and encourage them to tape and trade his music in an effort to spread the word regarding what he's up to. This includes audio and video, and also acknowledges the reality that many fans have access to CD burners.
MK heartily endorses the practice of prominently including, on each Keneally-related doodad produced, a notice to the effect that "This is not an official MK/BFD product," and politely asks that all other traders and producers adopt the same practice.
MK pleads that all interested parties purchase all available official Keneally merchandise before entering into the tape-trading/producing netherworld.
MK would massively prefer that no one profit from unofficial tapes and CDs of his music.
MK accepts with some trepidation that people are now beginning to include unofficial MK/BFD sound and video files on their websites for downloading. While he acknowledges that this is an effective way of spreading the word, he also hastens to remind those engaged in such practices that these files could well be many listeners' first access to his music. He asks that entire concerts not be made available for download, just selected tracks. And try to make them really good ones, OK?
MK wants a copy of everything; please send whatever tape/video/CD you produce to Mike Keneally, PO Box 927605, San Diego, CA, 92192-7605.
If things get out of hand, MK reserves the right to change his mind about everything.
OK, as you were. Thanks for reading.
Love, Keneally
Phish
http://www.phish.com/taping.html
Recording
Audience taping is permitted at all Phish shows. For purposes of this policy, performances by individual band members of Phish will be treated as Phish shows. Guest performances by band members with other artists will be governed by that artist's policy. When Phish is performing at a festival or other event featuring multiple bands, that particular event's policy may override Phish's customary taping policy. All taping is limited to audio only - no video is ever allowed - (no soundboard patches). If a show is entirely general admission, then a tapers' ticket is not required. In an amphitheater, if there is a reserved pavilion and general admission lawn the taping section will be located behind the mix position in the pavilion and a designated taper's ticket will be required (this is the case at all of Phish's 2000 Summer Tour shows). In an arena or theater, if the floor is general admission and the stands or balcony are reserved, you must hold a general admission floor ticket if you wish to bring recording gear into the show. If there is reserved seating on the floor, then a designated taper's ticket is required in order to bring taping equipment into the building. All designated tapers' seats have the word "taper" clearly printed in the text on the face of the ticket. If the ticket does not say taper, then it is not a taper's seat. Tapers' tickets are usually sold by Phish Tickets-by-Mail (mail order) only; they are not available from Ticketmaster or other outlets unless we specifically announce otherwise (as in the case of the Radio City shows). A taper's ticket (designated taper seat or general admission floor ticket) entitles the bearer to bring ONE audio recording deck and ONE microphone stand/set of microphones into the venue; additional equipment will not be permitted entry. Anyone found taping in violation of the above policy will be removed from the venue and unauthorized recordings will be confiscated.
Since there are no designated tapers' tickets at general admission shows, entry to the taping section is first-come first-serve. Taping will be permitted on a space-available basis with any ticket. When the section is full, no additional recording equipment will be allowed into the show. If you wish to tape at a general admission show you have the best chance of getting a spot in the section if you are in line to enter the building when the doors open; this time is always printed on each ticket. If all of the space is taken before you enter the venue, you will not be permitted to bring recording equipment in with you.
The enjoyment of the audience in attendance at a concert always takes precedence over recording efforts. This means that at no time should tapers ever require other patrons to be quiet or otherwise interfere with their enjoyment of the show.
Duplication
All participants in audio recording exchange (regardless of format) acknowledge and respect the copyrights and exclusive ownership of the music and performances by the performers, writers and publishers.
All taping must be for personal use only, which may include trading (via analog or digital tape, CD, or digital file transfer). Recordings may be traded only for an equivalent amount of similar media (cassettes or CDs, pre-recorded or blank). Regardless of any expenses incurred, no money may ever be exchanged as part of a trade; however, stamped, self-addressed envelopes may be included with blank media. In addition, the media by which audio trading is publicized may not be commercialized. Therefore newsletters, web sites, clubs, or any other communication forum facilitating audio trading cannot accept advertising, offer links for compensation, exploit databases compiled from their traffic, or otherwise derive any commercial profit in any form. Stores or businesses may not offer to duplicate Phish media for customers or sell or otherwise provide media containing unreleased Phish music for any price. A statement of compliance with this policy must be clearly posted on all web sites engaged in trading activity.
If we have chosen to offer for sale (via physical media such as CD, or via digital download) a particular Phish performance, this "official" version will take precedence over amateur recordings being offered for download. In these instances, we require that digital audio repositories remove any recording of these particular performances from their collections within 3 days of the official release or 3 days of Phish announcing the intention to release, whichever is earlier.
Notwithstanding the above, Phish reserves the right to require immediate removal of any unreleased Phish material. It is the responsibility of the site host to remain informed of the current list of Phish's officially-released recordings and to maintain their site accordingly. In no case may any officially-released Phish recording (live or studio) be duplicated or otherwise traded or offered. Broadcast of unreleased Phish recordings via: radio or online is permissible only if it conforms to all the guidelines applicable to other forms of duplication.
Audience taping at Phish concerts is authorized for non-commercial purposes only. Unauthorized sale, duplication and/or distribution is strictly forbidden. All Phish performances and recordings are the exclusive property of Phish. All rights reserved. The rights to record Phish performances set forth in this policy constitute an express, revocable license. We reserve the right to withdraw our sanction of recording, tape trading, and/or non-commercial digital audio file transfers on a case specific basis or in general, as we deem necessary. No waiver of any copyright or trademark right is intended.
If you are aware of any person or site in violation of this policy, please inform us. Thank you.
John Perry Barlow
Cognitive Dissident, may be found at: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/netmusic_brbook.html#_Toc475699194
NAPSTER'S ENORMOUS MUSIC ROOM (Excerpts)
An Op-Ed Piece for the New York Times
By John Perry Barlow
Last fall, an obscure 19 year old student named Shawn Fanning quietly inflicted the wound that I believe will eventually kill the music business as we know it. He set up a Web site called Napster.com.
Fanning also knew that people have an old and deep impulse to share music with one another, so, in essence, he designed an immense and growing virtual space, Napster.com, where they could do so. Napster creates a vast community of folks who can play music directly from one another's PC's, rather as they might play one of their roommate's CD's on the stereo in their dorm room.
Speaking as the fellow who co-wrote Cassidy, I don't believe that the kid in Ohio is injuring my economic interests by sharing it with others. Deadheads have been sharing our songs with each other for decades and it's done nothing but increase the demand for our work.
Cyberspace is and always has been a "gift economy" where sharing is considered a virtue, not a crime. The music industry is generally despised by both music-lovers and musicians, to whom they've been returning about five percent of the retail value of their works.
Music expresses the soul of a society. It is perhaps the most singularly human activity of our peculiar species, since, unlike the rest of our major endeavors, it doesn't support our physical survival. But the 20th Century music business has transformed the deepest currents of our culture into mere currency.
In Napster's enormous room, music will arise in spontaneous and global abundance in the space between creators and listeners so interactively that it will be hard to tell which is which. No longer will we mistake music for a noun, as its containers have tempted us to do for a century. We will realize once more that music is a verb, a relationship, a constantly evolving life form.
But you can't own verbs, nor relationships, nor divine gifts. Whatever the current legalities, I personally find defining "my" songs to be a form of property to be as philosophically audacious and as impractical as would be a claim that I own "my" daughters, another blessing that just happened to pass into the world through me.
As with my daughters, I want to exercise some control over what happens to the songs for which I was the mere conduit. I don't want them to be altered, abused, exploited, or used by others for their own commercial purposes. Developing the proper legal and ethical instruments to assure me that ability will be tricky. But more than control, I want my songs, like my daughters, to be free to roam the world and be loved by as many as can appreciate their occasional beauty.
King Crimson is on tour again, and visitors to recent Elephant Talks & the DGM Guestbook may have noticed that, in response, discussion of taping has returned. There are various justifications presented for this, including the hypocrisy & personal unpleasantness of the HRVL, of which we are well aware. Of particular interest to me, none of the posters in favour of bootlegging have yet presented a defence of their non-consensual act, even though invited by me to do so in past discussions on this topic.
I accept that some people want to record / video a show, and that different performers adopt different policies in respect of that want. In most "classical" performances, for example, recording, photography & viddying is strictly you-do-not. Various artists have differing views, reflecting:
The who & what they are as artists; The performing tradition of which they feel & consider themselves to be a part; The culture/s in which they operate; Their intention as performers; Their aims in performance; The perceived needs of their audience.My own approach is very clear, and has been for over two decades. Whether an audient agrees with this position or not is, actually, irrelevant: this is a condition of buying a ticket. If you are not able to honourably accept this condition, don't buy a ticket (so much for venality).
Probably most posters to ET & DGM are aware that this causes me distress, although very few seem to appreciate exactly why. The motivations attributed to Fripp are those understood by the poster: we attribute to others what we know most deeply in ourselves. So, posters attribute to Fripp their own understanding of taping / filming. Since taping is reasonable / ok / I want to, and I've bought a ticket, Fripp's motivations are therefore unpleasantness, personal failings & a venal nature.
To put this slightly differently: a taping audient is not in my position & therefore unlikely to share my feelings. They don't suffer my distress; therefore, they don't understand taping as causing distress; therefore Fripp doesn't suffer distress; therefore his arguments are false, dishonest, hypocritical & indicative of a fallen nature. Me The Audient wants to tape, and I'm a good person; Fripp doesn't want me to tape, therefore he's a bad person. I want to share this music with people: who cares if my actions in doing so undermine the performance I intend to "share" with others?
If anyone is interested in confirming the substantial accuracy of this brief overview, please refresh yourself by reading the existing archive commentary in ET before moving up to date with the following recent posting:
1. Jay Kirby
Jay's tone is measured and the argument appears reasonable. Actually, the argument is fatally flawed but, fairly obviously, Jay doesn't recognize this.
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 21:46:57 -0600> these artists? Is this how you conduct yourself in other aspects of your
> life? If I were to invite you to my home, would you feel obliged to steal
> objects from me on the rationale that I will not be effected by the loss?
JK: This is a specious argument. Taping something for your own use is nothing like stealing an item from someone's home.
RF: Taping is an attempt to take music from the air, to be carried away from the event. Where this is consensual, I have no complaint. Non-consensual recording of a KC/RF performance is also an attempt to take music from the air: I'd rather you left it there. To this extent, I view the act as a form of theft.
JK: When an artist puts his performance up for display in a public forum, he essentially loses the total control he may wish he had.RF: No creative process is within an artist's control. To answer the question "how may an artist control the creative process?" (the theme of a keynote address at Steve Zuckerman's NY Music Expo recently) is simple: you can't. If you can control the process, you know it's not creative. The artist may be able to control or direct their automatic processes, and may be able to respond to the creative process: both are exceptional achievements & dependent upon an effective discipline.
The process of professional performance may be available to control, at least to a degree. But professional performance isn't very subtle: it's slick, well rehearsed, often with extensive sequencing / pre-recording, and unlikely to be diverted from it's course by a prat with a camera or small DAT recorder & their head too far from sunlight to trust their opinion of the weather. Professional performance is mostly display. Fairly obviously, KC doesn't rate very high on the display-o-meter, and takes more risks than pure professionalism allows (as evidenced by impressive train wrecks on a regular basis, and most recently in Nashville).
More important, the act of music involves the participation & contribution of the audience. My concern addresses the nature and quality of an audience's involvement; how taping & photography subtly undermine the attention of the audience; and then subtly undermines the performance. Please note, this is subtle. A player's concentration may be undermined by a flash, which can be interruptive / intrusive / destructive; and uninvited flash photography is not a subtle act. But an infra-red camera is also disruptive & intrusive, although less obviously so.
My interest in performance is to control the event to as little a degree as possible. The less control, the greater the creative potential. The role of the audience in this is critical, as is the trust which a performer needs to be able to place in it/them. It seems to me that Jay is more interested in recording the performance than "being there" in the performance. Is he interested in contributing to the performance by the quality of his presence? May I trust this man to support me in a creative leap? Might he be more interested in a photograph of the artist at take-off, regardless of its effect upon them? And what quality does Jay believe he will carry away from the performance on film?
JK: Would you argue that taking a photo of a famous statue or painting and hanging it in my home would be stealing just because the artist didn't want it photographed? Even if I tried to sell that photo is it really to the detriment of the original artist?RF: This is, to quote someone nearby, a specious argument. This is an argument from the basement, and so dopey I'm surprised Jay doesn't see it for himself.
If Jay takes a photograph of a statue or a painting, the act doesn't impinge or intrude upon the creative process which resulted in that artwork's appearance in the world as a material fact. The act of photography, in Jay's example, takes place outside the process. If Jay's analogy is to hold, he would have to take the photograph while the artist was painting, or the sculptor sculpting.
What interests me is this: if Jay were to ask the painter if Jay might take a photograph while the painter was painting, and the answer was no, would Jay take the photograph anyway? Perhaps on the grounds that the painter didn't know what they were talking about, and that Jay knew better? If the painter had been painting for 42 years, professionally for 33, their work recognised internationally for 30 years, would Jay tell the artist they were mistaken to experience photography as disturbing their process? Would Jay judge their request "specious"? Valueless? Uninformed? Mistaken? Eccentric? Would Jay consider that, maybe, the painter's experience was authentic? Even, more informed than his own?
To continue Jay's analogy: I have no objection to Jay photographing a King Crimson CD of live performance, either in its jewel case or while it's playing (although I would consider this an act of impressive dopiness). But this what Jay's analogy leads towards.
I do object to Jay photographing or recording KC/RF while they are in the act of musicking. Jay would seem to deny me the right to object to his conduct, on the grounds that his behaviour can't possibly interrupt my process. The intentional act of anyone within an event has effect, whether they know it or not, whether they see the repercussions of that act or not. And I doubt that Jay has much understanding of my process.
JK: If anything it gives them wider exposure because many that may not have seen the original get to experience it.RF: Firstly, from one point of view, Jay is correct. The exchanging of tapes within a listening community may well increase the group's audience. But this is only valid where the recording is validated by virtue of consent. Otherwise, the goods are tainted.
Secondly, why is this Jay's business? Particularly when the artist says no?
But essentially, here Jay is confusing process with product. A performance cannot be reproduced by external means. It is possible to access, at a later time, the experience of having been within the performance's moment. But for this to be possible we have to have been there. Like, with our attention engaged; sensing our presence as part of the event; feeling the slight shifts in contact between the members of the audience, and the players in the band; and those indefinable moments when music somehow enters the notes - and everything changes! If we weren't "there", in the moment music goes on download, no amount of recording or photography can replicate the moment.
JK: I don't personally agree with selling concert bootlegs, but I don't think its possible for them to be detrimental to the artist.RF: Which artist? What is Jay's capacity for making the judgement call here? Would Jay mind if someone diverted a significant part of his income away from him?
JK: I'd bet that the only reason live albums started to appear in the rock world in the first place was because the record companies suddenly saw profit being made by these fly-by-night bootleg companies and wanted a piece of the action.RF: Historical factoid: record companies tend not to like live records. The initiative generally came from artists, who knew that their live work presented an entirely different perspective to their work revealed on studio albums. Record companies generally weren't keen & often refused to accept live albums as fulfilling contract requirements.
But Jay is correct to note that the artist gets exploited by record companies. What Jay doesn't see it, and so doesn't comment on it, is that artists are also exploited by their fans, of whom Jay is an unwitting example.
2. Ron Abbott
Ripcord033(Ron) <[email protected]>Newsgroups: rec.music.progressive,alt.music.bootlegs
Subject: King Crimson@12th and Porter now for download!
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 00:28:54 EDT
RA: Much to the chagrin of my various detractors, I have posted the last of the 4 KC shows to the alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.bootlegs newsgroup.
RF: The existence of the Collectors' Club is not a given, nor is its continuation guaranteed. The Club needs the support of its members in order to continue operating. KCCC releases are supplied on the condition that they are not duplicated. Mr. Abbott's action is a violation of the Club's spirit.
If Mr. Abbott feels his action supports the Club, then the first step is to consult with DGM. And if he is not prepared to do this, then why post the files?
RA: I really don't need the barrage of misguided e-mail from the moral conservators and anti-bootleg types that feel the need to harass me for posting the CC releases.RF: This present response is not misguided; rather, the reverse.
Nor do I object to "bootlegging" and tape swapping where this is consensual, guided by principle or accepted codes of practice. When we are unaware of declared guidelines, we operate in accordance with conscience. An act of conscience clearly has a moral dimension. An act which deliberately flouts guidelines and / or "house rules" presented as conditional to an engagement or relationship, also has a moral dimension.
The aims of DGM are clearly declared, as are the "house rules" for the Guestbook & the Club. There is little room for accidental misinterpretation. Club releases are supplied on the clear understanding that they are not to be duplicated. If anyone feels unable to honourably accept this condition, there is no need to engage with us. But to formally accept a "house rule", with the clear intention of not honouring it, is an act of bad faith & a form of lying. Clearly, this has an ethical dimension.
It may be part of my responsibility, even part of my work in life, to present Crimson music to the world. It is not Mr. Abbott's. If he feels the impulse to share his experience of KC music with others, and this impulse is genuine, there are legitimate ways of doing this. The approach above is not one of them.
RA: If you could have seen RF at the end of each set, telling the crowd why his sister feels if he'd talk to his fans they'd buy more stuff. As a matter of fact, I left the tape running during one of Ms.Fripp's more impassioned sales pitches, I think I'll rip the pitch and post it.RF: Mr. Abbott has full permission to post Patricia's pitch on any forum which he chooses. It is instructive that:
Mr. Abbott fails to differentiate between posting an advertising announcement & posting a musical performance; Uses the same technique of "sharing", in this context, as a threat.
But most interesting, informative & indicative of Mr. Abbott's motivation is his choice of the word "rip". His intention is not, contrary to his aim declared below, to share: his intention is to "rip off". If we take seriously the power of naming to reveal our natures, "Ripcord Ron" has named himself well. Mr. Abbott's intention is theft, and theft is never innocent.
RA: I bought stuff....travelled to Nashville, ate at the 12th and Porter restaurant twice and had a good old time doing it.RF: I am happy that Mr. Abbott, at least, had a good time. It strikes me as unfair that he may choose his performer, but the group may not choose its audient.
Travelling to Nashville is his responsibility, as is eating at the club. Neither of these actions have any bearing on KC or myself. Were he to have asked my advice, I would have recommended that he stay at home. I recommend that he do so in future. And how does buying "stuff" confer any rights other than to own the "stuff"?
RA: I really wanted to share the show with as many people who can download it.RF: The act of sharing is one I welcome & respect. It is part of the essential & instinctive impulse of being a human being. But sharing is more subtle than the "sharing" frequently referred to in contemporary media.
Sharing is consensual between all parties. Any "contribution" made without the full consent of any party constitutes a form of violence, and undermines the integrity of the act.
We can only share what is ours to give away. King Crimson's performances do not belong to Mr. Abbott, nor are they his to give away. His implicit claim and / or assumption, that in some way he has the authority to do so, is dishonest & arrogant; alternatively, self-delusory.
What Mr. Abbott may legitimately share is his experience of the performance. But for this experience to be of any value, Mr. Abbott would have to have "been there" in some substantive or qualitative fashion. I see no indication of this in his posting: he is a spectator, not a participant. He gives nothing, has no intention of giving, and receives in return the measure of his own contribution. Not prepared to leave it there, he then makes available to others what is not his to give.
King Crimson's performances do not, in any real way, belong to King Crimson either. A performance event "belongs" to whoever attended to it; that is, to whoever "was there" for it. This is contributory & participative. In this qualitative sense, Mr. Abbott undermines the audience as much as he undermines the group. And, although he hasn't seen this yet, he also undermines himself. This one small act of living his life is how Mr. Abbott lives all of his life. This is terrifying.
To the degree that we pretend the results of a musical activity is "product", the tangible outcome of a process, then the "ownership" rests with the artist. This carries with it a responsibility, which for my part I accept. I see in Mr. Abbott's posting no indication that he accepts responsibility for his actions. Rather, the reverse.
Mr. Abbott's action - illicit recording - undermined the performance. He then claims that this enabled him to "share" it. But why compromise something of value you want to share with others? RA: Now, I really did not expect to enjoy the shows as much as I did, (with the exception of "Prozac Blues" which I hated) but I must say Bruford and Levin were not as sorely missed as I thought they would be. Gunn and Mastoletto were a formidable rhythm section, and Fripp did more ripping than I have seen him do in years. A great surprise. They did show a lot of signs of nervousness, though I'm sure when they return to America in October, these signs will be long gone.
RF: But Fripp's "ripping" was paid for ahead of time, over a period of many years.
Mr. Abbott does not intend to participate or "share" in a KC show: he is there to take. His attendance is in bad faith. The expenditure of his hard-earned pay is an inadequate compensation for his presence and insufficient justification for "ripping" the event.
RA: P.S.....the lack of faith in the Core Sound Binaurals should be dispelled with the 12th and Porter recording...one of my best. I still recommend the Sound Pro's for arena shows, but the CSB's are unmatched in a club setting.Oh yeah...from Fripp's diary....re: the Sunday matinee....
"23.36 The first show was violated somehow: I was making mistakes that I didn't need to make. The heart of the performance was dying. Then I knew: we were being bootlegged. "
Little did he know....or did he?
RF: Well, clearly Fripp did know. The "hollowness" at the heart of the performance was visceral, & represents my experience of Mr. Abbott's personal contribution to the show. No justification which Mr. Hollowness-Of-The-Heart presents, to my eyes, validates his undermining of an act of music. Any act of music.
14.25
Toyah began my day at 11.25 with a telephone call. Hooray!
My alarm was switched to "off" for 11.00. All the Team are jet-lagging through the night & waking at artist-friendly times of the day. Trey arrived at a local bar-cafE about an hour after my own arrival, followed shortly by Laurie Tour Manager, where I was catching up on my reading: "After Progress" by Anthony O'Hear; Bloomsbury (1999).
"In popular culture, our musicians sing to us in our own voice.
In mass culture they shout what we want to hear."
