I find this Diary entry, for Thursday 25th. March, referring to the Wednesday evening before:
"Readers of Elephant Talk will be familiar with some of these techniques. They are generally presented as `we want something, we have rights to want that something, & Fripp is a creep because he doesn't give it to us'. From my side, I have several times responded in detail to the assumptions, inaccuracies & missing facts in the `my encounter with the horrible Fripp' reports. Like, Matt the Tri-Cranial, actually a nice man, never mentioned in his original encounter report that he had `had a beer too many'. In other words, Matt's original posting failed to report that Fripp was actually avoiding someone who was not sober. And so on. And so on. And so on."
Strangely prescient, then, that my comment for the 24th. March should be mirrored in a posting to ET for the 24th. March from Doug Vencill. This is Mr. Vencill's report of his own Truly Horrible Encounter With The Raging Heartless Fripp under the heading "What's eating Fripp?".
Mr. Vencill's post, if I take it prima facie & literally, is as definitive an example of life in the basement - assumption, presumption, projection, dishonesty, self-righteousness, self-deception & egotism - as one might find. DV's post is so well-constructed as to support the various arguments which I have presented in response to the "Awful Encounter" thread, that I have had to re-read his letter several times to make sure that his is not actually a very sophisticated & ironic parody of the "innocent audient" falling foul of you-know-who.
If my perceptions are sufficiently honed to discriminate, I recommend that anyone interested in learning something of the workings of basement-mind should immediately access Elephant Talk #580 & check out Mr. Vencill's letter for themself. I note, from my own long studies of the dark, damp & smelly zone, that actors / actions from the basement:
1. Achieve the opposite of their nominal aims;
2. Attribute to others their own processes;
3. Are inherently contradictory at best, and then move rapidly towards deceit;
4. Have a distinct odour one learns to recognise as "self regard".
All of these consequences, and more, are adopted / held by the body and, to a trained eye, are exemplified / described in the physical bearing of the basement dweller. Life on the higher floors, even the ground floor, learns to recognise these physical manifestations and, where necessary or useful, mimic them (for example, in role playing). This is part of our self-defence capability, a kind of rapid stay-go response. An experienced (even untrained) eye, an eye with perhaps 30 years of observing the characteristics & idiosyncracies of a broad range of vampirism, may know at a glance that their finer energies are endangered, and engage or not with a potential life-sucker.
In other words, you see them coming.
There is a range of available responses, of which often the simplest is to flee. This is because the basement dweller is dangerous, dishonest, egotistical & smelly, & rarely open to the presentation of reasonable arguments which suggest the BD's head is placed too far from sunlight for them to offer a reliable commentary upon the weather.
Now, to the post...
DV: Something happened to me a few years ago that still has me bothered, and I'm asking any fellow KC fans to feel free to respond to this if anything similar has occurred with them.
(No, please don't, except by private mail. This is a "dead thread". -- Cheers, Toby).
RF: i) This encounter still resonates with DV. Why? Basement-investigators please note: this is significant.
ii) "Fellow" implies a masculine bias. This may not surprise Crim enthusiasts.
iii) Toby: if this is a "dead thread", what's the letter doing in ET?
DV: In the summer of 1995, I about had a myocardial infarction (sic) when I heard that King Crimson was going to be the opening act at the HORDE festival that year. I made a point of getting off work early that day so I could get there in time, as KC was scheduled to take the stage at 5 pm.
RF: Actually, it was 1996. But, close.
DV: I wasn't too surprised to see that not too many people had showed up to see the opening act, but those of us who were there were strong in numbers and enthusiasm at seeing the quintessential progressive rock band of all time.
RF: No comment.
DV: I had spoken with a friend of mine about half an hour before the show started ... He had found out that KC was only being allowed an hour-long show with NO ENCORES, and that Fripp was pissed about it.
RF: Actually, not.
I was very happy about playing for an hour. This is an ideal amount of time to present a concentrated & focused performance, particularly where a large proportion of the (numerically challenged) audience were likely to be unfamiliar with Crimson. The main appeal of HORDE to me was the possibility of playing to an audience new to Crimson (the second reason being an opportunity to listen to the other bands). No encores is also fine: the performer puts their full endeavour into the time available.
DV: Well, we weren't too happy either, but the Powers That Be evidently had everyone's hands tied, so we just decided to enjoy the show as much as possible. And a great show it was, needless to say.
RF: Why needless - where is discrimination? If the show was great - how, why, what? Impartial & considered feedback helps the performer. Indiscriminate support reinforces the performer's egotism.
DV: The stage announcer even invited us to leave our scattered assigned seats and come down to the front so we could enjoy Robert & friends up-close.
RF: This was at the band's request, but wasn't possible at all of the HORDE venues.
DV: What a treat it was seeing the band from the 3rd. row, my 35mm in hand.
RF: i) Perhaps Mr. Vencill is being overly modest?
ii) If this is a camera he refers to, I wonder whether Mr. Vencill is given to filming other "up-close" events?
DV: And what a shame it had to end so soon.
RF: But not for me. An hour is an hour is an hour.
DV: Well: I was strolling the grounds of the Sandstone Amphitheatre, watching the roadies set up for Rusted Root, when I heard a soft-spoken British voice behind me. I turned, and there, in glorious 3-D, was the redoutable Mr. Fripp himself with someone who appeared to be a road or tour manager. As unobtrusively as I could...
RF: To an impartial observer, how unobtrusive is that?
DV: ...I turned to him and said, "Excuse me, Robert...?" in hopes of shaking the maestro's hand...
RF: i) What would DV gain from shaking my hand?
ii) How unobtrusive is shaking hands?
DV: Apologising for the appalling treatment they had as an opening act for the festival...
RF: The treatment was fine, straightforward and un-appalling. And if the situation were otherwise, how was it DV's responsibility to apologise for it?
DV: ... possibly getting an autograph...
RF: Fancy that. Why? What might DV get from an autograph? And how "unobtrusive" does the intention behind DV's proffered interraction appear now?
DV: ...& the chance to thank him for 26 years of unbelievable music.
RF: Basement-investigators note: the potentially proffered thanks rate on DV's list below the handshake & an autograph.
DV: No sooner had I uttered the above words than he turned on his heel and walked off without even looking at me.
RF: The technique is called "blocking". Eye contact is a form of engagement. So, I declined to engage with DV by not looking at him. Not only can you see them coming, you can hear them coming: the tone of voice is a giveaway.
DV: I was so flabbergasted at his behaviour that I was speechless for a second.
RF: As long as that? DV is describing his reaction to an expectation not being met. Someone familiar with my other commentaries on the encounter thread, & many postings and interview comments, might not have DV's expectation.
A craft student, seeking to establish their practice, might recognise - at the exact moment that DV accurately describes - an opportunity has opened. DV fails to recognise this opportunity & instead moves into reaction: the trapdoor slams shut at the top of the ladder which leads out of the basement.
DV: The manager with him followed dutifully behind, giving me an embarrassed glance...
RF: This is DV's reading of the glance. If DV is correct, and recognised embarrassment, the embarrassment might not have been embarrassment for the roadie.
DV: ... and all I could say to him was, "I'm very sorry".
RF: If DV were very sorry, he'd wouldn't have written this letter. And if he wasn't very sorry, why say so?
This mirrors, in an interesting way, the ET poster from Australia (April 1998?) who recounted in his "Awful Encounter" story how, some two years after the event, he was still disturbed by that encounter (the poster had let off a flash at the QE Hall Soundscapes under the poster asking for no photography). The post significantly failed to include the detail that, when I stopped playing, and asked him: "Why?" he gave no reason, but said "sorry". I was more interested in an explanation of why he'd taken the photo than having a (dishonest) apology. The Antipodean was, with DV, not "sorry". Otherwise, why demand a reciprocal apology of Fripp for upsetting the flasher by calling him out (an interesting concept in itself)? I still wait to know the reason for taking his photo.
Students of basement-dwelling may be sensing the general drift here: life in any one particular basement proceeds according to basic rules, which are the same rules which govern life in any other basement.
DV: He (the road manager) assured me it was all right and disappeared into the crowd.
RF: If the road manager gave DV this assurance, perhaps it would have been wiser to leave the non-incident there? But, over two years later, DV's ruffled feathers have not yet unruffled. Why? This is interesting.
DV: I want to share something with all of you.
RF: This is dishonest. Sharing, as an action, engages & involves others in the benefits of our own qualitative experiencing. Mr. Vincell's post is the dumping of his personal, unresolved negativitity onto a public forum. Another, lesser, form of this is "venting". To misrepresent his post as an act of sharing indicates that DV is deceiving himself, and/or seeks to deceive his readers.
DV: In 25 years of attending literally hundreds of concerts, I've had the privilege of meeting some of my most revered musical heroes ...
RF: In which case, DV is old enough to be held responsible for his public behaviour & posting.
DV: All of these people (11 names) were very gracious in talking to me, signing autographs, and expressing appreciation at our adulation of their music.
RF: i) The sudden jump from singular to "our" is interesting.
ii) Attributing to the range of players the same response - "appreciation at our adulation" - is a bold assumptive leap. DV assumes & claims to know the processes of his "most revered musical heroes". This is technically possible only were DV able to put himself in their experiential places.
iii) A player of quality is not interested in "adulation": it binds them to the earth in a sticky embrace. A player of quality needs / must get up and fly. Generous-yet-critical ears, impartial, open with goodwill, are part of the fuel for this particular flight. DV is offering a bucket of crude, glutinous, sticky, unrefined oil in the place of rocket fuel.
A lesser player, mired in their own self-regard, feeds on the quality of attention (adulation) which puffs up both subject and object. This is a form of mutual masturbation.
iv) I make no comment on the artists referred to by DV, nor their motivations in dealing with him as they have, but suggest their motivations may not be as DV assumes.
DV: I have never had anyone treat me like His Royal Highness Mr. Fripp did ...
RF: Perhaps Mr. Vencill should go out more often?
DV: ... not even the courtesy of acknowledging my existence.
RF: i) Hurt Brat, Zen Master & defender of Matt the Tri-Cranial, presented a similar argument: Matt's very existence was denied by Fripp's non-engagement with Matt's non-sober overture.
Although I enquired of our Zen advocate (my favourite quote was "Zen works") as to how Matt's very existence might have been denied, even the sound of one mind flapping failed to provide the answer. As a postscript, I met Matt (at an in-store in Boston) and his "very existence" seemed fine, even genial, despite Fripp's "denial" of it.
ii) Why does DV want his existence acknowledged? What part of his existence? And anyway, what exists? And why would DV need external confirmation of that?
iii) Students of basement-dwelling, please note that this comment is the centre of DV's post.
DV: I'm sure Fripp is not the only musician in the world who treats his fans this way ...
RF: Probably, Fripp treats people the way Fripp treats people, in accordance with time, place & person, and the reasons he has posted & declared publicly for years.
Sometimes Fripp holds up a mirror when he senses an "encounter" approaching. Perhaps not surprising, then, that many encounter reports include sightings of a monster.
DV: ... and I realize this might seem like so much hot air to a good number of people reading this.
RF: Not so much "hot" as warm & fetid.
DV: But I had to vent...
RF: The smell certainly indicates something on the move. But why "had"? Why "vent"? From where does this necessity spring?
DV: I think it's a sad state of affairs when celebrities...
RF: DV is classifying & categorising RF as a celebrity. This is DV's classification, & one way of nailing Fripp to the earth. That category in place, DV's criteria & expectations of that category are then applied to Fripp. This has nothing to do with Fripp.
Much of my professional life has been spent rejecting the notion of "celebrity" and its accompanying aspects, projected & forced onto me by out-of-tune fans & adulants. I decline to sign autographs & shake hands, loathe photography, and reject the demands of those who insist Fripp be a celebrity. This insistence is unreal, one-sided, & involves the projection of aspects of the adulant's own persona.
DV: ...basking in the glow of years of success...
RF: Once again, this has nothing to do with me. This is part of the imaginary world of DV. And do we read the same press clippings, reviews & enthusiast newsletters? Does earning a living equate with "basking in the glow of years of success?". Does DV have any factual data on how Fripp has "basked" over 30 years of earning a living as a working player?
A few examples of Fripp's years of basking, please, for my interest, to re-invigorate my robust sense of humour, & to prompt hooting parps of mirth.
DV: ... forget that it's their fans who put them where they are.
RF: i) Actually, it's the "fans" who have tried to hold me where I was, and prevent me from moving to where I am.
Anyone generous enough to examine my career over a 30 year period can hardly fail to notice the dis-engagement strategy with the past which characterises each movement sideways & forward.
Current "die-hard" fans, keen that King Crimson moves forward while remaining exactly the same, might conclude that the next stage in Crimson's existence (Ade-Trey-Pat-Robert) might simply be a cunning ploy by the Venal Leader designed specifically to shake off their clammy demands. (Actually, it's only a fortunate by-product).
I am where I am despite "fans" such as DV, not because of them. This implies no ingratitude to the enthusiast, engaging in a spirit of critical goodwill, with open ears, who reminds me of my responsibilities & encourages me in my endeavours.
ii) DV's statement is a cliche. It carries no positive energy, involves no reflection, consideration of available information, and bears no relationship to the actual conditions of my life and work. It is manipulative in its intent, & seeks to suggest that I follow DV's dictates & demands.
DV: I can understand if Fripp was disgusted over the allotment of time they were given for their performance...
RF: i) Fripp wasn't disgusted. Or disappointed. Or miffed. An hour is long enough for someone to state their case, present their argument, indicate their view of the world & then leave happy.
But why DV's assumption? As part of a caravan, a circus, the team event of a festival, every act has their allotted period & more than that takes time from the other participants.
ii) Perhaps DV "understands" because he imagines that, were he in Crimson's position, he would resent not being the centre of attention for as only as possible. This attention might be the "acknowledgement of his existence" which he appears to want.
iii) Our need for attention is fundamental, but we often fail to differentiate between qualities and kinds of attention.
DV is prepared to offer RF his conditional attention: conditional on getting the kinds of acknowledgement he describes, in return for the exchange for money. This is a form of prostitution (and I imply no criticism of buyers or sellers in the sex industry, where the relationship is well-defined).
iv) The quality of attention which DV offers me is not what I want, wish or need.
DV: ... but I can assure all of you that at the end of each song they offered us we ROARED.
RF: It's not for me to direct the behaviour of an audience, but I prefer a discriminating & measured response over the knee-jerk automatism reported by DV.
DV: We were all in heaven.
RF: I note that DV is able to speak on behalf of the entire audience, of whatever size.
DV: I would think that would have been sufficient balm to heal his wounded ego...
RF: i) Clearly, this is what DV does think. But why? Whose wounded ego are we examining?
ii) Uncritical support, even in the form of roaring, fails to provide any kind of "balm". If Crimson plays badly, and the audience fails to measure this and respond appropriately, how can we rely on the audience for feedback?
iii) DV assumes that Fripp welcomes uncritical support. Why this assumption?
DV: ... but evidently I was wrong.
RF: "Evidently" is DV's word of choice, and is well chosen. But DV doesn't see how, where or why.
DV: So, Robert, if YOU'RE reading this, I'd suggest you take a good, long meditation and remember that the world owes you - as it does all of us - NOTHING.
RF: i) This is a textbook example of how egotism fights back when its hold over us is disturbed. Note the move to capitalisation.
ii) A meditative practice procludes aggressively forcing meditation on another, with the injunction: meditate and you'll agree with me! This is a reliable indication that the injunctor has no established practice.
A meditator / reflector / mentator might consider the proposition that our rights as human beings (this is another octave to what the world "owes" us) is balanced by our obligations. The degree to which we meet our obligations is the degree to which we are able to actualise what is available to us. And (in my view) what is available to us is inconceivably more than we allow ourselves to believe to be possible. This view neither denies that life is a gift, nor that the universe moves in accordance with a single decision.
Long meditations are not necessarily "good", and "good" meditations are not necessarily "long". Anyway, what criteria apply to "good" meditations: that one agrees with DV's opinions? And how long is long? An hour? A day? A week's retreat? A ten month retreat?
Mr. Vencill's advice resonates with a hollow authenticity.
iii) Although the world owes "all of us - NOTHING", the promptings of DV's meditations seem to exclude from this dictum the right to demand the attention of soft-spoken, redoutable English guitarists.
DV: You are truly blessed in that you have been granted the brass ring of doing what you love and getting paid for it..
RF: What I love is playing to a discriminating audience who drop their demands of an event and enter the moment. For this possibility, I pay a high price. Enduring the smell of DV's letter is part of that payment. Other part-payments include enduring the ongoing harrassment of those who appear more eager to collect the trappings of "celebrity" rather than open their ears to what is available. And this may well be a blessing, an opportunity for the working gigster to suffer indignity & humiliation.
DV: ...but it would do you well to remember where all those dollars came from.
RF: i) The familiar refrain: I give you my hard-earned pay, so give me what I want. This argument is profoundly & fundamentally dishonest.
DV's dollars are presented in exchange for well-defined transactions: for a CD, for a performance. It is illegitimate to write into this exchange an implied & one-sided demand for "services", "rights" or exchanges which go beyond that.
ii) The assumption appears to be that Fripp does what he does for money, or should do. This tells me more about DV's values than it does my own.
iii) DV appears to be instructing me to act at his behest in exchange for dollars, and threatening the withdrawal of his patronage. As any relationship is mutual, & mutually consensual on known & agreed terms, I decline his offer.
iv) Only for one period did I make significant money from my involvement in King Crimson - 1975/6/7. Ironically, this was after the group disbanded and was in a period of non-existence. The bills stopped & the royalties continued. (Notable exception to this is EG Management, who deducted their gross commissions & paid the group net earnings).
And my personal assets don't come from music, but from an increase in domestic property values in the UK. So, in future DV "would do well to remember where all" my sterling came from.
DV: I wasn't some lamebrained, Motley Crue T-shirt wearing "far-out-dude" type...
RF: i) So, DV wasn't wearing a Motley Crue T-shirt.
ii) This is arrogant & elitist. DV implies that being a Crimson fan is an advance on being a Motley Crue fan. I would rather play to a Motley Crue fan than a closed-minded Crimson fan at any gig.
DV: ...who was going to scream "Hey everybody, it's ROBERT FRIGGIN' FRIPP, MAN!".
RF: DV's scream was quieter but, if we include his letter as an addendum to that shout, more oppressive. And DV fails to recognise who I am.
DV: I was just a struggling musician myself who genuinely wanted to thank you.
RF: i) This is a lie, as in all other variants of the refrain: "I only wanted to say than you".
Thank you asks nothing for itself. Thanks make no demand, like, to "acknowledge the existence" of the person nominally proffering them.
ii) My sympathy goes to any aspirant player who makes efforts. But my experience suggests that the struggling of most aspirant musicians is misdirected & misplaced.
iii) Most struggling musicians (of my acquaintance) make demands of their public. Like, for their attention. As an audient, I rarely feel I've been given something in exchange for my time.
iv) If a musician presented me with a performance compromised by manipulation, self-deception, dishonesty, justification, a demand for attention, & expressed their engagement in terms of a commercial imperative, it would not surprise me that they were struggling to win the support of a listening community.
DV: Regardless of what kind of MOOD you were in, I think you could have conducted yourself more like a gentleman than as a holier-than-thou egomaniac.
RF: i) My mood was fine. DV's letter is about DV's MOOD.
ii) One of the prime rules of gentility is to offer no violence. For example, we do not force ourself upon others, especially when we are aware that our overtures are not reciprocated.
Another prime rule of gentility is to accept responsibility for oneself, and for one's own actions. Like, DV's negative emotional reaction is his own responsibility, which he seeks to attribute to Fripp. Fripp did not insult him: Fripp declined to engage with him. Clearly, from DV's letter, Fripp made a quick call & got it right - good instincts, I'd say.
iii) We attribute to others what we know most deeply in ourselves.
DV: I will still buy King Crimson's music and still speak of them in glowing terms...
RF: i) Pity. A recommendation from DV would steer me in the opposite direction.
ii) If DV wishes to put dollars on the table for Crimson's music, he should do so in the full knowledge that it entitles him to nothing more than a CD, or entrance to a show. His dollars give him no rights to force himself, or his demands, on me.
iii) DV's patronage of the arts, & artists, is his choice. And I encourage him to go elsewhere.
DV: ...but my encounter with the Frippertron will leave a taint on my memories of that concert performance forever.
RF: Forever is a long time; eternity is in the moment.
And so the unhappy post "What's eating Vencill?" comes to an end. In this fashion does brain-death masquerade as sentience.
"What we hear is the way that we hear."
