Hooray! A frenetic weekend of various and varying frenzies, including a visit to DGM World Central yesterday evening en route to Chez Horse in Chiswick. Toyah left on Friday afternoon for her weekend of filming for Heaven & Earth at Witchampton, but so wanted to say goodbye that she drove back again for Friday night (arriving midnight & leaving at 08.15 Saturday). Then last night she drove to Birmingham where she was filming on the street in a new BBC TV series this morning. But she managed to get back to London before I left for the airport, and we had lunch on the Chiswick High Road. Hooray! Again.
After four whole days in the country, traveling now resumes. The Travel Pro Happy Gigster's Wheelie Bag is working overtime, and a new Samsonite suitcase (acquired in San Raphael) is being broken in tres rapidement (5 years of a Grammar School education has obviously not gone to waste). This present journey is to New York City to give the keynote address on Friday evening at the New York Expo.
Other excitements await in the City en behalf of BootlegTV. David Singleton & Steve Ball fly into New York for meetings on Thursday morning. BTV's swiftly developing business requires an increasing amount of attention. Born on 1st. February we move into our new offices in Seattle on 1st. March.
Another excitement: everyone visited Billy B.'s website? Bill's venture into cyberland was overdue, but now he's here - yet another hooray! for this diary entry.
A non-hooray!, actually a pooey pooey, was the amount of mail awaiting me at World Central which demanded of me, as if of right, my attention and life energies. This included:
A bold instruction to explain actions & decisions: how dare you put the audience at the end of "Live Groove"? - I deserve an explanation: drop everything and explain to me why you seek to anger me like this! A demand for money: my worthwhile endeavour deserves your cash! Ongoing complaints from DGM customers who don't approve of our movement online: continue to use the post, even though it looses DGM money, a lot gets lost, but then we can complain to you even more! they write.This is only an overview of my awaiting correspondence.
An interesting point to notice, just standing back a little and looking over Fripp's shoulder, is not that there is anything "wrong" per se with any of these communications. The subject matters are all worthy of discussion, even though most have been discussed and "explained" on this website sufficiently that anyone prepared to be active may already find their answer. The characteristic which is interesting is the whingeing quality which accompanies, colours and effectively undermines the correspondence.
A good example of this is Keith's post to the Guestbook on 23 February, which raises several interesting points. Sadly, none of them are raised by Keith himself. I am rarely sure, given high levels of dopiness in posts & without being able to look someone in the eye, observe their posture and smell their state, whether posts such as Keith's are deliberately constructed with multiple levels of recursive irony. This as an alternative to being simply dopey. Keith's letter falls within this range of my "Is this for real?" file.
Keith's open letter is, on the surface, a good English whinge. It includes a question which isn't a question while purporting to be a question. Before I looked at Keith's e-address I thought "this smells of England". Keith asks why I "rebuffed" Michael Giles' offer to engage in musicking. Keith uses "rebuff" twice, "rebuffed" once, and "spurring" (presumably "spurning"?) once. So, the question - " I find it curious that you would rebuff Mike's proposal to explore new musical terrain" - isn't. Keith continues: "Well, what do say Robert? Does this issue deign a response from you?".
Three questions for Keith:
Assuming you're English, how old are you? When, where & under what conditions did I "rebuff" Michael's offer? Why do you use the word "deign"?With this information, perhaps I'll be able to contribute more.
A topic for discussion / debate, if it is to be discussed & debated, must be presented "clean". If a topic presented for debate comes from a world where debate is not possible, I conclude that this is not a bona fide talking point, more a vent of negativity. Sunday's correspondence was tainted with reaction & arrogance. For example ("Live Groove"): explain this action which so offends me!
The explanation required by this angry correspondent can't be found in the world of reaction & negativity. An appropriate answer might be: shift your perception to the world where the answer lives. Then, we see the "answer" face to face. Often, when we do experience this "shift", it's not so much that we find the answer as the question has disappeared. The "reactive world" question doesn't live in the "clean answer world". Questions from the basement tend to disappear in the sunshine of the garden floor.
Our concerns are the concerns of the world we live in. Which is so obvious & banal that I feel the need to apologise for even typing that in. So, probably the best answer is to suggest that, if we really have a question, a burning question, a question which will not rest inside us but demands a response, we find a way of entering the world where the answer lies. That is, we accept responsibility for holding our question.
Guitar Craft seeks to answer questions by pointing the enquirer to the "world" where the answer is waiting to be seen. It does this by providing exercises and an approach which presents a ladder from the basement to the house above. If someone wishes to climb the ladder, fine. Otherwise, fine. So, is the question burning? Or is it only smouldering negativity? Or cheap curiousity? Or careless enquiry? Soon, time to move on from here. Who would like to get on board?
But, taking one question on its surface level
Q: What & why is the audience doing at the end of "Live Groove"?
A: The recording of the audience in Cleveland is presented as simple reportage. The audience is separated from the body of the album to indicate that it is not part of the album as such. If someone doesn't wish to listen to it, my assumption is that anyone of intelligence & goodwill won't listen to it. They have enough time to change channels. If they do want to listen to it, whilst hating it, the act is their responsibility and the reasons for their choice are theirs to address.
But isn't that obvious?
"May we have the courage to fail."
