18.17
Rising 06.45. Morning Sitting.
The rhythm of reading and writing, with musical accompaniments, was disturbed by an automatic restart on a Macbook, which failed for some reason, to which were connected three 4TB external HDs. This resulted in the complete loss of data on two of the HDs, archive pix and viddies. Oh no! Fortunately, there were older HDs with back-ups. But three days of checking, copying, re-formatting were lost.
I Advance Masked – Day Twenty…
Lunch preparations: Squerds Green & Orange…
… and a tasty lunch of avocado mash on sourdough, vegetarian sausages and broccoli…
Garden duties: mucho watering…
Cleaning duties: top shower room cleaning. In between: arpeggiation in the Cellar. If I spent the time on guitar that I spend on (happily) addressing domestic responsibilities, my guitar playing would have a great future.
19.08 A current buzzing from The Wasps’ Nest addresses what we may reasonably expect of our performers and artists in certain contexts, referencing events of over forty years ago. This is from my Kicking The Wasps’ Nest folder for 1997…
From Elephant Talk, Number 336
Thursday, 30 January 1997
Date: 29 Jan 97 12:07:03 EST
Subject: Letter from Robert
Tuesday 28th. January, 1997.
Dear Team,
In ET 259 Neil Corkindale writes (Saturday 10th. February 1996) on the subject "Meeting The Stars":
"I once stood at the back of the Manchester Apollo (UK) to get Robert Fripp's autograph. It was (I think) 1977, and Fripp was touring as part of Peter Gabriel's band.
The band showed up for the soundcheck, and getting out of the driver's seat of one of the cars was Fripp. I approached, with a copy of Giles, Giles & Fripp (I thought a signature would add to the value of the LP!)...
NC: Robert, Could I have your autograph please?
RF: I'm not Robert Fripp
NC: Yes you are!
RF: No I'm not!
NC: Yes you are!
RF: No I'm not!
NC: Please Robert, I've come a long way for your autograph (lying now, only 8 miles actually)
RF: I've come all the way from Winbourne (sic)
NC: That proves you are Robert Fripp!
RF: No I'm not - I'm his brother!
During the concert, Fripp sat behind the curtains, offstage. Gabriel introduced him as Dusty Rhoades! (sic).
Carved in the Stage Door entrance to the Manchester Free Trade Hall is `Robert Fripp's a Toad!' (Crimson's first gig in Manchester was 1971).
I did, however, get John Wetton and Mel Collins's autographs when they were part of Bryan Ferry's band, also in 1977.
I mention this because I happen to love King Crimson's music (especially pre`74), I find Fripp's diaries and notes fascinating, but I don't think Elephant Talk should ever get into the cult of the individual. I always look forward to his music, but I do think Fripp, as a man, is a prat (English version of nerd).
Any comments?".
I
Actually, yes.
Firstly, "Winbourne" is spelt "Wimborne".
Secondly, Dusty "Rhoades" is spelt Dusty "Rhodes".
Thirdly, "prat" in English refers to what in Dorset is called "fore-arse" and so might be also rendered as "fanny". An American word to convey Neil's general sense is probably "jerk", although the technical meaning of the word is rather different. And isn't "nerd" a lesser form of "geek" in American? Appropriate English (loose) synonyms might be "pillock" (also used in Dorset, as in the expression "yer gurt steaming pillock") and "pranny", widely associated throughout the UK music industry with Reg Presley of The Troggs. "Gurt" is a corruption of "great", implying a magnitude of accomplishment. Michael Giles, revolutionary drummer of the Crimso the Great, used the expression "the pillockry is great" when finding himself in situations of great, well, pillockry. That is, often.
But I get Neil's general drift.
II
Here is an alternative presentation of the exchange between Neil and myself.
NC: Robert, Could I have your autograph please?
RF: No thank you.
NC: I want an autograph!
RF: No thank you.
NC: I insist you give me an autograph!
RF: Please excuse me.
NC: No, I won't. And, to prove it, I'll use a dishonest strategy to manipulate your feelings. "Please Robert, I've come a long way for your autograph".
RF: You're lying. You know you're lying, and I know you're lying. But if you use a "my greater discomfiture gives my wants greater precedence over yours" strategy, then actually I've come all the way from Wimborne and you live in the Greater Manchester area.
NC: I don't care! It doesn't matter to me that you don't want to give me what I want! Give me what I want!
RF: Please grant me my privacy. But to show you that I retain a robust good humour despite your boorish, dishonest and inconsiderate behaviour: I am not Robert Fripp - I'm his brother!
III
Neil tells his "Fripp is a prat" story 19 years after the event. Neil has continued, generously, to take an interest in my musical and written work since. Also generously, he finds my diaries and notes "fascinating".
My impression from his story is that after our meeting, Neil came to the opinion that Fripp certainly was a prat. I have no disagreement with this: Fripp is a prat. And Neil's telling of the story 19 years later implies to me that he feels Fripp is still a prat now, as he was then. I also agree with Neil that ET (maybe anyone and everyone?) avoid/s a "cult of the individual".
Neil's story disturbs me in several ways. Would Neil be kind enough to respond to these questions?
1. How did you come to the (uncontested) conclusion that Fripp is a prat? (For example, was it is a sequence of events, our meeting in Manchester, my onstage behaviour, interviews and reviews in the NME and Time Out?).
2. Do you consider that autograph hunting might contribute to developing a cult of the individual?
3. Do you consider that Fripp is today a / the same / different prat of 19 years ago?
4. What is it that Neil finds "fascinating" in and about my diaries and notes?
5. Has it occurred to you at any time during the past (nearly) twenty years that there was, and are, different possible interpretations of our exchange?
Sincerely, Robert Fripp.
From Elephant Talk, Number 336, Thursday, 30 January 1997
Date: 29 Jan 97 10:19:32 EST
Subject: more from RF
Sunday 26th. January, 1997.
Dear Team,
In ET 188 Mike Dickson writes (May 10th. 1995) in response to a posting from Mark Clements. The comment from Mark which draws a response from Mike is this:
"As I'm sure everyone is aware, King Crimson does not make music for us. They make music for the only reward a musician receives: `the privilege of standing in the presence of music when it leans over and takes us into its confidence'".
I
My response to Mark:
This is a rather simplistic presentation of Crimson motivation in making music. For example, I feel Crimson does play to its audience; also that the members of the group make music for varying and several reasons: some of these we share in common, and some vary in degrees of importance between the individual members.
The expression "the privilege of standing in the presence of music when it leans over and takes us into its confidence" tries to convey my sense of an experience (or anyway, is my best shot in words) of what is always a mysterious event, however many times it happens. My own view is that the audience is utterly necessary for music to become what it is: the quality of the audience is as important as the quality of the musician/s. If the audience doesn't HEAR the music, the music isn't born. When audience and musician/s really come together, the performance can step outside time.
When time stops the musician (or at least Robert) has the strength to bear the mundane, dross, humiliations, trivialities and non-essentials which deplete the musican's proper life and nail their aspirations to the earth. When that happens, the audient has the strength to bear the mundane, dross, humiliations, trivialities and non-essentials which deplete the proper life, and nail the aspirations to earth, of anyone who would wish to be a mother to the music.
My hunch is that the other guys in Crimson would agree, whatever words they chose to reflect their own experiences, that the only real payment for the life of the professional musician occurs when the power turns on from Music World Central.
II
Mike's response to Mark is this:
"Sorry Mark, but you're swallowing far too much of the pretentious nonsense Fripp has been spouting for the last twenty years or so. He makes music to earn a living, just like every other professional musician. A great musician he might be, but he's in it for the money".
I am not attempting to dissuade Mike from his lowly opinion of me, posted several times with varying nuance. No-one who has looked into their heart, and seen in terror the poverty of our nature, can deny or justify their failings. Although we might try. But I'm not sure how a musician might get to be "great" if only driven by venality. (For the record: I do not consider myself a "great" musician).
What interests me here is the process which has lead Mike to his conclusions. Clearly, he's on solid ground: several other contributors go even further and comment on Fripp's greed (he releases lots of King Crimson albums), and expose Fripp as an "economic Lestat" (one of my personal favourites of dippy commentary).
My questions for Mike are these:
1. How does Mike know I make music to earn a living?
2. What reasoning leads Mike to the conclusion that I'm "in it for the
money"?
3. If Mark is "swallowing far too much" of my pretentious nonsense, is there any of my nonsense at all which Mike would consider worthy of a quick gulp?
4. What does Mike mean by "great musician"?
III
On May 14th. 1995 (ET 191) John Neumann writes in response to the Mike / Mark posting and agrees with Mike "that Fripp needs to get a grip on reality, and deal with his duties as a performer". In view of the recent and developing debate in ET, my questions for John are these:
1. What are my duties as a performer?
2. How would John suggest I deal with them?
3. How would John recommend that I get a grip on reality?
4. What is reality? (Sorry for this, but in view of John's comment it needs to be asked).
Sincerely, Robert Fripp.
"Answers will come through the guitar."
