In 1985, after I adopted the New Standard Tuning (C-G-D-A-E-G), a commentator wondered why, as my licks were much the same, why bother changing the tuning? This thoughtless comment demonstrates that the commentator has not reflected on the subject of their pratty observation.
1. A lick is an automatism, much like "phatic communion" in applied linguistics.
2. The automatism of a lick is primarily in the hands, rather than the musical thinking (even the automatic musical thinking).
3. The affective nature of the lick is also historic.
4. In changing the tuning, necessarily, all the fingerings change.
5. When the fingerings change, automatic finger memory no longer has effect.
6. New fingerings reflect / express / represent current and present musical necessities.
7. These current and present musical necessities are, well, current and present: they are in this discrete part of the continuing present moment.
8. If the lick appears to remain it has, at the least, been re-learnt; the fingers have been re-educated.
9. If there is something of value which appears to remain, it has been re-discovered.
10. So, what seems to be the same lick, is not actually a "lick" at all: it is part of the player's personal vocabulary, or at least their dialect.
11. Where we are is where we were, but "knowing the place as if for the first time": we are rediscovering our instrument, vocabulary, repertoire and music.
12. History has lessened its hold on us.
There are other techniques (and simpler ones than changing a standard tuning) to directly experience how much freedom we have in our playing. One of the simplest is to change the tempo at which we habitually operate. Nearly all players automatically gravitate towards their personal optimum tempo, where their facilities are not overly challenged. Professionals usually have a wider band of centre-of-gravity tempo. But even here this tends towards (what in the DGM Music Room is called) pudding tempo.
19.46
A long interview this late morning with Mike Haid, who drove from Atlanta. We talked for over two hours, and then Mike spoke to Trey.
The topics covered were wide, and included the question: "why two drummers?". There have been, after all, two definitive Crimsons with two drummers. The answer is simple: because I worked with Mike Giles in 1969.
No one drummer is as complete as Giles in 1969, nor has his playing of that time ever been surpassed in rock. His work in 1969 sounds fresh even today. So, I feel the need for two drummers, to cover territory as broad as I feel Crimson addresses. (I'm hoping Crimson is moving towards three drummer events, and am encouraging Billy B. to write percussion pieces for the three Crim drummers).
The conversation with Mike Haid moves on to the manner in which a group's music is defined by its drummer, and the appeal to me of the V-drums: there is an ambiguity which resists easy definition, and the associations & expectations which accompany certain sounds are upset. This helps to prevent a group being defined / limited / categorised in simplistic terms.
Now, simplistic terms: if the drummer has a jazz background, you've got a jazz group; if the drummer's got a rock background, you have a rock group. So, in 1972 Crimson had two drummers: Jamie Muir, from the free music scene, and Billy B. from the rock group Yes. Ironically, Jamie was more interested in playing rock and Bill more interested in playing jazz. But hey - this is Crimson.
In 1981 Bill incorporated Simmons' electronic drums into his acoustic kit. The writing and recording of "Discipline", and of myself encouraging Bill to rethink certain approaches to his playing in a Crimson context, were printed in Musician magazine at the time. Bill's redefinition of drumming in that Crimson contributed significantly to its stylistic innovation. Had Bill played traps in 1981, as in 1974, this would have been impossible.
Currently, I am encouraging Bill to adopt V-drums in Crimson for the same reason. Otherwise, Bill as a key defining force (such as in his own ventures Earthworks II, BLUE, Bruford - Towner - Gomez, ProjeKct One) would define Crimson in a particular way: primarily historically.
This afternoon Adrian, Trey, Chris, Ken and myself listened through to "Live Groove". It is impossible for me, listening to the drummer in ProjeKct Two, to know his influences. He's not a jazz drummer, but not quite a rock drummer; and he's also not a jazz-rock player. So, how is the drummer defining / shaping / driving the music? Then, I listen to the other two guys in this trio. The bass player isn't, because he plays the Warr guitar. But sometimes he is. And when he solos, or plays bass, I can't tell his influences either. Then the guitarist - he interests me, too: I have no idea, from listening, what are his influences. A lot of the time he doesn't sound like a guitar. So, is he a synthesiser player, or what? When he doesn't sound like a guitar, the structural elements of his vocabulary are not those of a guitarist. What is his musicical thinking? What are any of these guys thinking? What's going on in ProjeKct Two?
There are parts of ProjeKct Two, and ProjeKct One, which are distinctly Crimson. There are also parts of each fractal which are purely and idiosyncratically P2 and P1. However, if we imagine in our mind's eye the Double Trio / six-piece King Crimson onstage in full formation, and accessing all the music of all of the fractals, suddenly the concept falls into place: this is not a question of idiosyncratic P2 music and P1 music and P4 music not being Crimson, but that suddenly King Crimson music has expanded to include all of the fractal colours / flavours now available to, and part of, the Crimson vocabulary / palette / repertory! The breadth of Crimson music, always rather wide, is about-to-be-becoming much, much wider.
Isn't that exciting? (Wake up at the back!). Yes, this is very, very exciting! And, once again, my future view of Crimson continues to include all six members.
Three ways of looking at King Crimson; as:
1. What it does;
2. Who it is;
3. Whether it will, or not.
Moving along, this afternoon Trey's amp didn't quite arrive from flying in a functioning mode, and eventually weedy sounds pathetically emerged from his corner of the studio; so tomorrow we'll hire in a power amp. Vibrant sounds are emerging from my rig (which didn't fly in) and I'm beginning to incorporate the TC G-Force. This is a stunning little beast, used extensively by Trey already. Studio quality, excellent design, impressive sounds from an innovating company. But, as with all sophisticated sound processors (Eventides 3000, 3500 & 4000 included) it doesn't get down and dirty. For that, less sophisticated little suckers are the answer.
Trey and Chris have now left Chateau Belew and returned to their modest but sufficient accomodation near Opryland, Trey holding a manuscript page of octotonic figures in 11/8, torn from my book, to be examined tomorrow in sequence, canon, inversion and retrograde inversion, and also in 4/4. These are available for a developed "Heavy ConstruKtion" or "Larks' Tongues In Aspic, Part Four". After all, it's only rock `n' roll...
"Nothing worthwhile is achieved suddenly."
