The Great Divide describes how we feel in any process when we are too far from the beginning to go back, and too far from the end to go forwards.
During the P4 bagel-time (not quite a lunchtime, but a break time anyway) I suggested to Tony, Pat & Trey that they consider a five-piece King Crimson without me in it. At the end of our working day we visited Loco Lupes, Mexican restaurant and home of the Monster Margharita, with Adrian & Martha Belew, Chris Murphy and Ken Latchney, our recording engineers. Once again I made the suggestion, and encouraged them to initiate Frippless Crimson and ProjeKts.
Points in favour: Crimson can visit all those towns & cities that Fripp will never play in; can play in all the venues that Fripp rejects on the grounds of size, acoustics and musical suitability; can play any repertoire; can play acoustically, electronically, without restriction; and can make a lot of fans and enthusiasts very happy.
If it isn't already clear, King Crimson for Fripp is not simply a musical venture. King Crimson is a way of doing things; it has its own raison d'etre; its way of doing business has operating policies which support the musical aims; it comprises individuals who define / express / manifest the eternal Crim's spirit within any partiKcular inKcarnation. King Crimson is also a band of professional musicians who work in a cesspit of an industry, one which misrepresents itself by adopting the misnomer: "the music industry". "The industry of music" is only marginally closer, and it's still a cesspit.
Audients are, within the commercial culture, consumers. This is the culture of democracy, a post-modern condition, and where there is no one privileged position. Everyone has equal rights under the law, and in America these rights are increasingly articulated and defended. (In England the lower orders, and minorities, know a class society attenuates their nominal rights; and, in any case, they can't afford the lawyers' fees to establish them).
So, assuming a consensual transaction, audients have the right to anything they pay for. I have no objection to this: the democracy of the dollar confers a voting right on anyone who has a dollar. In a caste system, having a dollar doesn't mean as much. I may be able to accquire a dollar and enfranchisement: I can't change my blood and background. But if the relationship between performer and audience becomes a commercial transaction, and as I see the audient as merely a consumer, the musical life has just died in me.
King Crimson fans and enthusiasts, if ET is an indication (and it probably is), are more interested in King Crimson of 25 years ago than the / an ongoing and present King Crimson. New Crimson material, tours and recordings are eagerly awaited, with the implied proviso that new Crimson is a great idea - subject always to fact that it's the same as before. And preferably 25 years before.
Bill, who suffers terribly for Fripp's (apparently) arbitrary decisions is not troubled by many of the concerns which trouble me. Bill is primarily an executant, and an outstanding one. That is, Bill is mainly interested in the activity of playing music. The specifics of what he plays, or the conditions in our culture that musicians work within, are largely a given. Tony, Pat, Adrian, Bill and Trey are all exceptionally experienced, talented professional musicians. These five are all better players than I am, and mostly have greater experience. They know, from this experience, the crushing conditions which restrict the possibilities open to any group of players. To get onstage as a group (KC or whoever) is in itself such a crowning achievement to hope, wish, want, or demand more than this is utter madness. How can a group of players, or even one player, or anyone, change this pernicious industry, itself probably not much different from any other?
To get King Crimson onstage and playing, or in a studio and recording, is itself such a triumph maybe, reasonably, that's all we should hope to be able to achieve. When we get that far, against all the difficulties and limitations, we're faced with an audience who mostly prefer material Crimson played years ago. Why not give the audience what they want, so everyone's happy!? The group plays, which it loves; the audience loves what they play; and the musicians get paid (not a great deal, but sufficent). This is an achievement in itself, and to aim for more is unrealistic.
But in this regard Fripp is utterly fucking unrealistic. If this is my future as a working musician, and as a member of King Crimson, better to stop here. For the third time.
My personal responsibility is to the global view. It disturbs me that in any 2500 theatre 500 people are not going to see or hear anything of value. That profoundly disturbs me. I know the reason: economics. The extra 500 people, marginal to the musical event, are necessary to the economic event. 2000 people break even. So the Tower in Philadelphia (capacity c. 2500) is on my banned list. In Mexico City, each evening for three evenings, 500 people were ripped off. That pains me in any country; in a poor country this is improper. When I look out, see and know this, the performance is spoilt for me. But to any experienced, professional musician, that's the way it is.
Why break up Crimson when the group gets about to be really successful? Because "success" reinforces the nonsense, the pressure to continue, to repeat, and the pressure to continue to accept the nonsense. Among younger players who begin to become successful, the musicians begin to preen a little more; begin to play for the gallery a little more; if they are single, they begin to respond to the sexually stimulating part of the audience a little more; if they drink, they drink a little more; if they take drugs, they take a better quality of drug; if they enjoy eating, they eat from menus in French (to quote an early ELP interview). In the face of overwhelming encouragement and support for performers who play the game, performers play the game; and the consuming audience pays for a vicarious delight.
King Crimson fans would love new King Crimson music, providing it's the same as before. And if it is, they'll complain that it's not innovative, just like they did, well, before. Isn't this clear?
Audience expectation is a weight, a brick wall, which spoils so much and denies the possibility of joy within any available moment - by defining the moment historically. Hey! lighten up guys! Let go! You've got your favourite albums - listen to them! You've got fond memories and nostalgic reflections - wallow in them! 25 years' ago there was little enough interest in the band; 25 years later, get into the now or stay where you are - but DO NOT hold down my moment. You kill me, you kill Crimson, and you impoverish a precious opportunity for us all.
The idea that Robert is THE leader - this reflects a limited understanding of what a leader is, or might be. It doesn't reflect on how Crimson operates, or provide an insight to the nature of leadership. There is no one privileged position: which means equally there is / are privileged postion/s. In an ideal world, leadership is a role played among equals. My particular role of "leader", or what Adrian calls "quality control" and "vision", has no bearing on what is known as "the leader" in an heirarchical context. Crimson is not heirarchical in the way that many ET posters appear to assume; e.g. each Crim player has the right of veto; everyone shares the money.
The limited, simplistic view has my sympathy. But this dud reasoning does not apply to the inner workings of Crimson.
10.21
Adrian has just popped down to say that KC without Fripp is not an option he's interested in. He felt strongly about this.
22.19
Today was a turning point.
I have returned from dinner with my friends Vic Garbarini and Kate Dombroski, and meeting their friend Jane Cantrell. Vic was editor of Musician magazine during the early 1980s. He is the only writer I know who is able to clearly articulate the dynamics of the creative process; and more directly than any musician I know. Katie is a shiatsu specialist of exceptional talent and capacity.
"Our living is as rich as our attention is available."
