Errors-To: et-admin at blackcat dot demon dot co dot uk Reply-To: et at cs dot man dot ac dot uk Sender: et at cs dot man dot ac dot uk Precedence: bulk From: et at cs dot man dot ac dot uk To: et at cs dot man dot ac dot uk Subject: Elephant Talk Digest #333 E L E P H A N T T A L K The Internet newsletter for Robert Fripp and King Crimson enthusiasts Number 333 Sunday, 26 January 1997 SPECIAL ISSUE Replies from ETers to Robert Fripp's post in ET#328 (part three) ------------------ A D M I N I S T R I V I A --------------------- POSTS: Please send all posts to et at cs dot man dot ac dot uk TO UNSUBCRIBE, OR TO CHANGE ADDRESS: Send a message with a body of HELP to et-admin at blackcat dot demon dot co dot uk, or use the DIY list machine at http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/aig/staff/toby/et/list/ ETWEB: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/aig/staff/toby/et/ (partial mirror at http://members.aol.com/etmirror/) THE ET TEAM: Toby Howard (Moderator), Dan Kirkdorffer (Webmeister) Mike Dickson (List Admin), and a cast of thousands. The views expressed herein are those of the individual authors. ET is produced using John Relph's Digest 3.0 package. ------------------ A I V I R T S I N I M D A --------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 10:12:57 -0600 From: weisrot at cscoe dot ac dot com (Todd Weisrock - CIS) Subject: The Rights/Expectations of the Fan Robert, I think your post was very interesting and insightful. In response, I think that the rights and expectations of a fan with regard to an artist, athlete, etc. are really no different than our rights and expectaions regarding all of our interpersonal relationships. Different people expect different things. People whose expectations are far from reality, or far from others' ability or will to live up to those expectations are going to fail to succeed or to be happy. I think that fans have the right to say or write what ever they want, be it mature or immature, helpful or hurtful, smart or inane. Likewise, they must realize that the artist has the right to take it or leave it, to ignore, rebuff or graciously accept the commentary provided. This whole concept runs tangent with America's embrace of the politically correct movement. It has become unacceptible to criticize, chose one's own words, or even tell a joke any more. Similarly, some artists, and fans for that matter, believe that they should be isolated from the opinions of others. Differences in opinion or expression are what makes life interesting for God's sake. Fans and artists, idiots and intellects alike have all become too thin skinned to realize that what they believe they are is what they are, regardless of what someone else says. Thanks for the music, and go ahead, sit in the dark on stage if you want! ------------------------------ From: Matt Lincoln Subject: Response to response in et#328 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:30:37 -0500 [ Note to readers, in the light of the controversy about whether the post from Robert Fripp in issues #328 was genuine: this next post is indeed from Matt -- Matt ] Date: 15 Jan 97 09:57:45 EST Subject: Response to Response From Robert Fripp Wednesday, 15th. January 1997. Dear Elephantosities, 1. Ray Walston should play Fripp in "King Crimson: The Movie", his gigs on "My Favorite Martian" and as the devil in "Damn Yankees" should make him ideal. 2. Stop arguing about Fripp's attitude towards you, etc., he's has none, or does he? 3. Would Robert be kind enough to consider, and respond, to these questions: i) What is the nature of the relationship between the people / persons / humans and guitarists? ii) What are the rights of the people / persons / humans? iii) What are the responsibilities and obligations of the people / persons / humans? iv) What do you utterly impersonally, as a people / person / human expect of your guitarists? v) What do you utterly impersonally, as a people / person / human expect of a certain yet utterly impersonal and unmentioned guitarist in particular? Since 1969 I have read reviews, articles, interviews, and commentaries about a certain yet utterly impersonal and unmentioned guitarist in particular numbering in the tens maybe twenties. Since then I've read Elephant Talk. For several minutes I have undertaken this as part of my personal discipline. As part of a discipline, the question is always: does lifting the toilet seat help me serve my aim? No other humans of my acquaintance or knowing read as widely as myself the commentaries and chit-chat concerning this certain yet utterly impersonal and unmentioned guitarist in particular (in this letter). My hunch is because, in various ways and for various reasons, the humans often get confused. My personal approach is to not lump people in categories so as to make it easier to kick them around. Like having people in group called "fans" so as to take into account my past experience with other "fans" and collect more evidence proving my assumptions right. Instead, I consider them as myself. A little courtesy won't kill you... or will it? Whenever someone gets really personal, it touches me. Firstly, because it has everything to do with us: all six billion of us on this planet. Secondly, I don't consider it to be like walking through a farmyard: if you step into a cow pat, it is particularly informative, and instructive (including telling you to wake up and notice you consider others input as cow pat.) but, if you are considerate and responsible for your past assumptions, you just might learn something new (like humility) from a fellow people/ person/ human. Occasionally I see a letter in ET, that seems that it may be a personal response to letter I sent, but actually it is impersonal. Very impersonal. Where I was attempting to touch upon the relationship between enthusiasts, fans and followers and musicians, my responses have moved between humor and bemusement that mature and reasonable yet utterly impersonal and unmentioned guitarist in particular might come to his expressed opinions and judgments, often with some heat, on the basis of a clearly developed sense of what he expects of the people/ person/ human they come into contact with; umbrage when these expectations are not met; with clearly implied assumptions on the part of what the people's/ person's/ human's position is / should / might / can only be, and certainly is despite anything, in any case, anyway, because I'm a artist with an aim and that gives me rights. So, what rights? What obligations? What expectations? What assumptions? So WHAT! 4. Very little in my life holds significance over people. In all the comments I've received on "Matt's encounter at Merriweather ET#327" I don't recall anyone commenting that I was calming my rights as a fan who had expectations based on the ticket I purchased ( By the way I paid full price for it and did not purchase from scalpers at the show who were charging $20.00 less for better seats!!). My behavior might simply be practical, and in some way serving my mother's aim: treat others as you would want yourself treated, and be nice. Also, that this is itself part of an ongoing exploration and learning curve for me of how to relate to people. This is an alternative approach to "Fan's have expectations" or "does this fan serve my aim?" lines of enquiry. If anyone read my letter "Matt's encounter at Merriweather ET#327" one might realize that all I was saying was I was sorry if I somehow skewed your aim such as to make you move and could you apologize to me? 5. Actually, I am very grateful for you as a musician, and especially a guitarist, for 38 years. My own feelings towards you are intimate, and personal (that's all we have as people). And sometimes I guess I expect too much from a fellow people/ person /human. Maybe my mom was wrong. Sincerely, Matt Lincoln. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 13:02:54 -0800 From: Chris Mitchell Subject: Replies to Some of RF's Questions An open reply to Robert: First of all thanks for posting. It's heartening to see worthwhile commentary coming from a KC member. I've spent my share of time in various audiences (or, more accurately, a few audiences and several crowds) and have a little experience of being onstage. For what it's worth, I can offer some humble observations... What is the responsibility of the audience? One would hope it would be a certain state of listening, call it conscious, active, attentive, or as you have, "listening through the music." But this state is difficult (or even non-desirable) for many, probably because it has the connotation of the audience just "sitting there." One side of a past ET thread lambasted the audience eggheads who sit there "analyzing chord progressions." Not true, although I would rather be thought of as analyzing chords than be someone who analyzes an ADAT machine throughout a performance (so much for sanctity of the moment). The conscious audience becomes active in that it contributes to the performance. An improviser such as Keith Jarrett relies on the audience almost as part of his instrument (no talking, please!). The result is the unique musical exploration that defines each show. Same goes for his Standards Trio. Same goes for just about any first-rate jazz musician, which is why most of my interest lies in that genre. As for Crimson, I see the same thing applying. Although many Crimso tunes are "set," this is not a band that paints by numbers. If the audience is there, in the moment, and if the musicians are there, in the moment, music will happen - music that is eternal, if only for that moment. This is not a pseudo-mystical idea - it is a palpable feeling that makes going to a concert worthwhile. In Atlanta, on the THRAK tour, I was thrilled to feel a few such moments. Particularly in the THRAK improv itself, where the music slowly fell away, and a beautiful SILENCE fell over everything. No one made a sound, not even the girl who chatted thru most of your soundscape. I can't say how long this moment lasted - ten seconds, fifteen, thirty? - but the impression it made has lasted ever since. It was like slipping outside the fabric of time (if that sounds silly, so be it), and it wouldn't have happened without the one united moment of listening. As for the rights of an audience, this seems to be defined by each audience. At the last show I attended, Medeski Martin & Wood, a sizable portion of the audience considered their rights to include taking drugs, elbowing and jostling neighbors, making bootleg tapes, talking to others, fighting, and smoking inside a non-smoking building. (Despite this, the band played excellently, even exploring some quiet moments alongside the continual crowd chatter.) The next show I will see will be Joe Henderson's trio, playing at the very same venue in two days time. I expect the audience behavior will be radically more restrained, while the music isn't any less restrained. Why is this? Perhaps you're referring to the rights of an audience to criticize, as in "boy, I think they should get rid of so and so," or "they shouldn't have done that song." Well, an audience, devoted or not, has the right to express their opinion, and they certainly have the freedom, but in the end, it doesn't carry much weight. It's like Stanley Crouch criticizing the Miles Davis/Gil Evans albums as "too European." Crouch's critique does little to undermine the beauty and impact that those albums have had for almost 40 years, whether or not they fit into Crouch's definition of what jazz "Should be." Even more to the point, the critic is sat at a desk, writing after the fact, while Miles and Gil were actually inside the bubble of experience, DOING the work, exploring what they wanted. It's not hard to see whose take on the music is more significant. In other words, if Miles thought Evans was a Eurocentric flake who didn't have a place in jazz, he wouldn't have worked with him. Finally, my expectation of Robert Fripp is for Robert to continue to play music that engages his highest musical and aesthetic sensibilities. I have been very happy with all of your work in recent years, and considering your obvious love and commitment and discipline, I can only expect your work to get better. As Miles Davis said, an artist's first responsibility is to himself; my amendment would be that the musician's responsibility is the music. What anyone else expects or wants is irrelevant. This is the difference between entertainment and music. Music needs musicians to respond to the demands of the moment (such as laying out). Entertainment needs performers to respond to the demands of the crowd (scratching my face while scraping my strings in the midst of improvisation). I suppose a live show might require a balance of both. This being on open reply, I can't resist the opportunity to say thank you, Robert, for doing what you do, in whatever manner allows you to do it. Chris M. univ of tenn squonk at utkux dot utcc dot utk dot edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 12:49:25 -0800 (PST) From: Jacob Aaron Gorny Subject: Re: Elephant Talk Digest #328 I'd like to offer my responses to Fripp's questions. Feel free to edit them for length. Keep in mind that I am an Orthodox Christian seminarian and so if theology bothers you or scares you, you may wish to press space a few times. i) What is the nature of the relationship between the audience / enthusiast / fan and the musician? >From my experience of being a guitarist and someone in training for ordination, I believe that there is very little difference between what a priest must contend with during the course of the divine liturgy and what Fripp seems to describe in his commentaries on Music and its performance. In as much as they have two things in common, 1. Both a liturgy and a concert rely on a presence outside of our understanding. 2. Both processes have the containable manifestation of the uncontainable as the core experience. I believe they have a third commonality, that is 3. In a liturgy, the priest and the people all face the same direction, and it is a physical reminder that all present are worshipping together. The performer and the priest I believe are equally amazed at the outcome of the core experience when they perceive the mystical nature of their work and the tangible nature of what is beyond their work. The musician and the audience face the same direction during a performance. They face the emptiness of sound, and the potential of that emptiness which the mind can mold and shape into a ripping piece of music. I go to a concert because the artist is more prepared to receive the gift of music than I am. (In a liturgy, the priest faces a spiritually empty chalice which may become filled through the priest's belief and discipline and then gets shared by all who believe with him. Of course, both music and the Holy Spirit fall where they may... and nothing is guaranteed. :) ) ii) What are the rights of the audience / enthusiast / fan? To acknowledge that they came to a show to see music, and that the music presented will always different from what they expect. iii) What are the responsibilities and obligations of the audience / enthusiast / fan? To partcipate in any way they can if they feel so inclined. iv) What do you personally, as an audient / enthusiast / fan expect of your artists? I think I've made this clear. I expect the musician to serve me. This is because I admit that I am unable to serve myself in the same way that they can when I show up at their concert. If I could play like them, I certainly wouldn't go to their show! v) What do you personally, as a KC-RF audient / enthusiast / fan expect of Robert Fripp? I expect him to remain steadfast in discipline so as to be the cleanest and clearest vessel possible for the music he receives. From what I've read, I think he has managed to do that. I will expect the same of myself when I stand before the altar and prepare the gifts. -Jacob Gorny Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, Brookline MA jagorny3 at juno dot com ------------------------------ From: "Swan, Doug" Subject: RE: Mr. Fripp Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 08:11:55 -0800 * Dear Mr. Fripp, First off, thank you for the post. >1. Harvey Keitel and Kevin Spacey should play Fripp in "King Crimson: The >Movie", in alternating scenes. Who cares if anyone's confused? The confusion would only add an element of truth to the part. > >2. Stop arguing about Fripp's attitude towards you, etc., and acknowledge he's the greatest guitarist in the world. Sorry, I haven't heard the best guitarist in the world yet. I will give >you a shot at the most inventive though. > >i) What is the nature of the relationship between the audience / enthusiast >/ fan and the musician? These questions are all rather broad, Robert. Without parameters any answer would be rhetorical, but entertaining. > >ii) What are the rights of the audience / enthusiast / fan? Most artists bring something of themselves to the performance. Each artist is unique and each performance can be unique unto itself. The expectation is variable depending upon what the artist is asking of the audience and what he has chosen to reveal to them. It also depends greatly upon what the audience is willing to give to the performer. Having said that, there are certainly some basic criteria: The right to an honest performance. The right to an honest effort. Beyond that, the criteria changes according to the artist and the expectation they have set up FOR the audience. > >iii) What are the responsibilities and obligations of the audience / >enthusiast / fan? You'll get a different answer from everyone on this, but my criteria is: To not disturb the artist's train of thought by talking or making extraneous noise. To give the artist the benefit of your full attention. To open yourself fully to the performance. To pay to get in (although backstage passes are always nice!) > >iv) What do you personally, as an audient / enthusiast / fan expect of your >artists? This question is really answered above. If you were to say, what do you expect of Robert Fripp when he performs, the answer would be quite different than what one might give if we were talking about "No Doubt" or "Gong." Again, each performer and audience defines the moment. > >v) What do you personally, as a KC-RF audient / enthusiast / fan expect of >Robert Fripp? See above. Further, I expect some sonic surprises, I expect a show that has an element of spirituality to it. I expect to be challenged. I expect to walk out shaking my head and thinking, "what planet could he have possibly have come from?" > >No other musicians of my acquaintance or knowing read as widely as myself >the commentaries and chit-chat concerning them. Ken Stringfellow is a regular contributor to the Posies' list. While what you are saying is/has been true for some time, the climate is definitely changing. More and more artists are choosing to both follow and participate in on-line conversation concerning their bands. Many of those same artists were on-line as they were growing up and, thus, have had the net integrated into their processes. > >Occasionally I receive a letter, or see one in ET, that gladdens my heart: >someone has actually seen how it works! Clean feedback is a joy, a reward, >a friend. It is impersonal. Not everyone is going to interpret your music and performance the way you would like it to be interepreted. That is neither good nor bad. It just is. All artistry opens itself up to both broad and subjective interpretation. > >Where the elephantosities touch upon the relationship between musicians and >enthusiasts, fans and followers, my responses have moved between >bemusement, amazement, laughter, anger and sheer disbelief that mature and >reasonable people might come to their expressed opinions and judgements, >often with some heat, on the basis of a clearly developed sense of what >they expect of the artists they patronise; umbrage when these expectations >are not met; with clearly implied assumptions on the part of what the >artist's position is / should / might / can only be, and certainly is >despite anything, in any case, anyway, because I've bought my ticket with >hard-earned pay and that gives me rights. And doesn't this whole bit of thinking pour over into our entire lives? Take any 100 people and you will find elements of all of the above. Music isn't the only catalyst for that, it is simply one of the more visible. > >So, what rights? What obligations? What expectations? What assumptions? You have no obligation at all beyond the honest attempt to convey your music professionally. If I was to approach you and ask you something about your tonal theories and you simply walked away, it wouldn't lessen my opinion of you as a musician, only as a person. Even with that, I certainly wouldn't take it personally, It's not my fault your might be an asshole, and it's certainly not my doing if you turned out to be one hell of a nice guy. It really isn't any of my business at all, although I think we all have a tendency to have natural curiosity about our artists. > >4. Very little in my life is arbitrary. > >In all the comments on "Fripp's 'tude" I don't recall anyone commenting >that my onstage and offstage behaviour might simply be practical, and in >some way serving my aim. Also, that this is itself part of an ongoing >exploration and learning curve for me of how I do what I do. I'm sorry, but quite the contrary. I have seen numerous posts that have mirrored your philosophy. They certainly didn't hit it on the button, but they had a general idea of why you may choose to perform the way you do. I've never thought of it that way though, I always figured that what you do requires a great deal of focus rather than demonstrated emotion, so you simply remove yourself from distractions. > >5. Actually, I am very grateful for the level of public support which has >enabled me to remain a musician, or at least a guitarist, for 38 years. My >own feelings towards this public are intimate, yet utterly impersonal. And >sometimes personal. vicey versee ------------------------------ From: Paul Parkinson Subject: Re : Robert Fripp Posting Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 21:58:43 -0000 Rigorously quoting from Robert's posting : <<1. Harvey Keitel and Kevin Spacey should play Fripp in "King Crimson: The Movie", in alternating scenes. Who cares if < Subject: RF- General Commentary and Question Answers ET'ers First of all, I think it's obvious to anyone now, even those who haven't read the FBF or GD booklets, that Mr. Fripp has a great sense of humor. So what? you may ask- well, nothing really....it's just a good thing to have. Now on to the questions: > i) What is the nature of the relationship between the audience / enthusiast > / fan and the musician? In reality, very complicated, although, in most musician-fan relationships, not progressing much beyond the "Artist as the Voice of God" phase. The KC-fan relationship, both groups having the unique status of being compsed of intelligent members (rare, I think, in the music world), goes far beyond this. Both the Musicians of KC and the fans have acutal expectations. More on that in a sec. > ii) What are the rights of the audience / enthusiast / fan? The fan, IMHO, has the right to expect the musican to adhere faithfuly to the musical inspiration that drives him (or her). In other words, the fan has the right to expect that the musican wil produce the music that he is inspired to play- not what his agent, record company, or signifigant other tells him to play. How can you tell? Well, think about it. How many of you haven't known when your favorite group or person started to think about things OTHER than the music. > iii) What are the responsibilities and obligations of the audience / > enthusiast / fan To accept the music that emerges from the artist, and if it is unpleasing, to attempt to inform the aritst. This can come in many ways, from letters to not buying albums or tickets. In the end, if the fan remains displeased, he has the OBLIGATION to not support the artist. > iv) What do you personally, as an audient / enthusiast / fan expect of your > artists? Pretty much what I stated as answer to question #1. I'd like artists I like to wirte and play what inspires THEM. Hopefuly, this will always be somthign that inspires ME, too. It may not always be. But if an artist changes in a way I don't like, than it is time to move on. Sure, it hurts. But there are always other fish in the sea, to use the Stateside expression. > v) What do you personally, as a KC-RF audient / enthusiast / fan expect of > Robert Fripp? To do what I said in question 1. KC is my favorite musical group. I hope they never change in a way that displeases me. It would proably, for a time, really, really bum me out. But, if they ever DO change, than I hope it is because THEY want too. In conclusion, I'd like to thank the members of ET and the members of King Crimson. I think there will be some great discussion in the weeks ahead. And to RF himself- my relationship with you has always been as impersonal as your relatinoship with me. You have never seen me. I have seen you, but only onstage. My relationship with your music, however, is not impersonal. And I think, in a way, that is all that matters. Thanks for the music. Sorry this is so long. Chris ------------------------------ From: charity%creighton dot edu at cs dot man dot ac dot uk Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 23:46:23 -0600 (CST) Subject: IMHO, Mr. Fripp Greetings Mr. Fripp, You requested a response to your questions, therefore I feel obligated to reply. i) The nature of the artist/audience relationship seems to have direct parallels with the tool/user relationship. I am King Crimson's tool which they use to make a living, etc. etc. King Crimson is my tool in that I receive a certain inspiration from their music, etc. etc. Each group attains a desired end product by manipulating the other. One could also discuss the problems that arise from the seperation of the two discourse communities through media and society, but I'd rather not. ii) The right of the audience is the right to choose which artists we appreciate, for whatever reasons. iii) The responsibilities and obligations of the audience are (a) to respect the artist and his/her works, (b) attempt to offer only constructive, polite and well-articulated criticisms, (c) be an advocate and evangelist of the artist's works. iv) I personally expect artists to supply opportunities to support them and their work, as well as their attempt at artistic advancement in the provided medium. v) I expect Robert Fripp to be innovative and experimental, while operating under whatever artistic persona he feels comfortable with. I see Fripp as artist, not Fripp as social being. Some of us remote entities seem to think we know Fripp, but I don't believe that pays enough respect to the fragmented, multifaceted nature of human beings. ************** I could gush for quite awhile about my feelings towards King Crimson, but I won't. Despite the venue (and the stupid hippies they had doing the sound), the August '96 Kansas City HORDE show was a terrific experience, including my husband and I running into you (almost literally). Thanks for everything. Best wishes, Charity H. Upchurch Senior, English Creighton University Omaha, Nebraska USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 00:59:29 -0500 (EST) From: Throatspro at aol dot com Subject: Re: From Robert Fripp Dear Robert: Thank you for writing. Here are my replies. i) What is the nature of the relationship between the audience / enthusiast / fan and the musician? Mutual confirmation. ii) What are the rights of the audience / enthusiast / fan? Access to the music they want to hear. iii) What are the responsibilities and obligations of the audience / enthusiast / fan? Attention, politeness, respect and support. iv) What do you personally, as an audient / enthusiast / fan expect of your artists? Do you mean besides sex on demand? v) What do you personally, as a KC-RF audient / enthusiast / fan expect of Robert Fripp? The unex-f***king-spected. With hand on heart, Tim Lucas (Throatspro at aol dot com) ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 16:13:12 +0000 From: khoffman at giantfood dot com (Kurt Hoffman) Subject: response #1 to Fripp in et #328 Beyond any humor value that Fripp may have provided for us with his posting (and Robert, I think I'd check out Harvey's nude scenes in The Bad Leutenant and The Piano before I'd want him playing me!), there were some questions that literally begged to be answered. As with most of you, I have answers for them, and hopefully like most of you I'll attempt brevity, and of course over-simplification. Toward these ends I feel obliged to tackle one question at a time, with the hope that Toby will not place the topic off-limits before I conclude. If so, Toby, I would hope that you would act as conduit to Fripp in private, so as not to continue burdoning the thread with my ramblings. After all, Fripp asked for it, why should we all suffer through it. And of course, I welcome both floggings and support in public and in private. The nature of the relationship between a fan and a musician- Avoiding any psychobabble about envy or obsession (fan is after all short for fanatic), I'll proceed with the matter of the economics of the relationship, because I feel that is where the relationship ultimately finds common ground. Prior to the advent of consumer driven capitalism brought on by the industrial revolution (among other factors), an artist often subsisted at the whims and mercies of the royalty and clergy in their area (royalty and religion being the main areas where wealth resided, and limited modes of transportation tending to keep artists fixed within certain geographical regions). Artists tended to apprentice under other artists, learn their craft and then go out and court benefactors. While this may appear to be the model for our modern practice as well, the distibution of wealth that occured with the industrial revolution caused a shift in the flow; that is that now the whims of the many potentially outweigh the whims of the few. The 20th century has ultimately made the creation of art a product to a level it could not have been previously- supported by varying consumer tastes and shifts in the demographics of disposable capital. All this is moving to the point that the relationship between artist and fan, while it has always been product and consumer based, functions now in a way that puts greater demands upon the artist (for the purposes of this piece I will be avoiding the nature of the recording industry- although it is obviously a very large factor in this relationship, it will cause an analysis so long as to be rendered unreadable... as if this won't be anyway) to appeal to larger percentages of the population than the artist previously had to to maintain economic solvency (I know the history of art is littered with great works by artists who starved during their own lifetimes, but I doubt seriously that starvation was a goal for most of them- just a byproduct that was not in and of itself a deterent). It is there that I find the nature of the relationship between a fan and an artist- the artist must create product pleasing to the fan, who then must purchase said product. The process of this purchase serves the dual purpose of sustaining the artist and giving the artist an understanding of the avenues the fan wants the artist to pursue. As a side to this we see the phenomenon known as brand loyalty, whereby an artist might produce product less pleasing to the fan, yet the fan continues for some period to consume. The other side to this is that it is possible for the fans tastes to change, leading to a discontinuing of the support that the fan provides the artist, even though the artist has continued to produce product that the fan previously found consumable. While this situation ultimately calls into question the motivation behind the artist (that is, is it the desire to create that drives the artist or the desire to profit from the lucrative nature of art as product, or more probably what is the balance within the artist of those two forces for creation), let us work under the assumption that the artist has decided to create art without consideration for the practical matters such as compensation. (This "pure" condition of course is virtually impossible, but as a standard I feel that it expresses what most of us hope, that is that art is created because of a need to create art, not out of a need to no longer be a dishwasher. I'm sure that most of us would agree that much of what has past for art in the last century was created mostly as product- and while that may have its own virtues and merits it ultimately goes against the spirit of the concept "art"). As such, the relationship between artist and fan is, in a capitalistic sense, a very simple one. The artist creates, the fan consumes. The artist creates again, funded by the consumption of the previous art. The fan consumes again. This goes on until competition enters the market, by virtue of the idea that art does not exist in a vacuum, and other artists view each others work and are influenced by it (in the "pure" sense). This causes a variety of product to enter the marketplace, which causes a situation in which the fans may find a variety of product that appeals to them to the point of wishing to purchase it. Given limited capital for these purchases and a potentialy exponential growth of available desirable product (the condition of the non-pure reason for creating art having influence here; as a product style becomes popular others will chose to pursue that style), the fan will be forced into deciding where capital will go. This alters the simplicity of the relationship between fan and artist, and changes the fundamental give and take. The artist now must, by virtue of increased competition for capital (which is necessary to continue existing and creating), influence the artistic process to included an increased responsiveness to the fans whims, or face potential extinction. If left unchecked, this will logically lead to a shift within the artist away from the pure to the impure motivation. This will in turn lead to a shift in the fan base, as certain fans will no longer chose a given product (for a variety of reasons- the afore mentioned shift in taste, the questionable logic of distaste based on increased popularity, the increase in desirable product versus limited capital for consumption, the degradation of the product away from what was initially attractive, etc.). Ultimately this will lead to a continuous flux within at least a percentage of the fan base of an artist. While being often over-generalized, I feel that this establishes the nature of the relationship of the fan and the artist. How the artist choses to respond to these conditions often defines the "desirability" of the artist to the fan as much as the actual product itself (witness the DIY aesthetic of "punk"). Of course, there are other elements which enter this scenario, but with those points we often reach subjects of specific emotional motivation on the part of the fan which are ultimately too psychobabble to pursue (at least within a reasonable length- which this already isn't), or questions of the chronology of product style. Next time... what rights do a fan have (which we all hope will be shorter). -Kurt ------------------------------ Subject: To Robert Fripp Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 11:36:19 -0500 (EST) From: innerviews@@pobox.com (INNERVIEWS) > Subject: From Robert Fripp > > ii) What are the rights of the audience / enthusiast / fan? The ability to exercise preference and choice over which cultural products they "consume." > iii) What are the responsibilities and obligations of the audience / > enthusiast / fan? To approach art with an open mind. > iv) What do you personally, as an audient / enthusiast / fan expect of your > artists? > > v) What do you personally, as a KC-RF audient / enthusiast / fan expect of > Robert Fripp? Real artists have no obligations to the fan. The only obligation is to themselves -- to the music. If you've satisfied your "soul," that's all that matters. ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~ Anil Prasad innerviews at pobox dot com ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~ INNERVIEWS: Your link to exclusive interviews and CD reviews featuring the world's most interesting and innovative musicians! http://pobox.com/~innerviews (Netscape 3.0 enhanced) New interviews: Victor Wooten, Ten Seconds, Alain Caron (ex-Uzeb) Coming soon: Tony Levin, Michel Cusson and Gary Willis ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:18:43 -0700 From: Keith Eagan Subject: Elephant Talk Digest #327 - Fripp Questions 1. What is the nature between audience/enthusiast/fan and musician? A mutually agreeable meeting of individuals. All are free to come and go. If you don't like the movie - leave. Goes for all the above [fans, musicians, etc..]. Each gets something out of the exchange. None have the right to demand anything, none have the ability to grant anything. 2. What is the right of the audience/enthusiast/fan? The right to come and listen/experience/see to the level of interest he/she chooses. 3. What is the responsibility and obligations of the audience/ enthusiast/ fan? To realize that there are no rights to be rude, demanding, manipulative, extorsive. Other responsibilities would include: being supportive, responsive (when asked to do so), give feedback that benefits both fan/artist alike. 4. What do you personally, as an audient / fan expect from your artists? This is a hard one. I would expect Growth. Unabridged creativeness. The ability to take me to a realm which I have not previously considered - thus a lack of expectation. 5. What do you personally, as a KC-RF audient / enthusiast / fan expect of Robert Fripp? To be Robert Fripp. It would be presumptuous, even arrogant to think that I could change or suggest change to that which you have done and built upon for so long. As an ending thought/analogy - I feel that an Interaction between artist and audience is much like skiing a beautiful mountain slope. One can have a wonderful and meaningful experience without considering each individual snow flake. Of course snow flakes don't have thoughts on the subject of being skied [assumed position taken by humans], but if they did, would the skier care? Perhaps, if the results produced a stronger discipline. Thanks for so many years of inventive musics. Keith Eagan ------------------------------ From: "Dan Wasser" Subject: Fripp's message Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:06:30 -0600 Well, well, well......so The Master speaks. Good to hear from him. I have a short response to his many queries. When I attend a concert, I expect to SEE the performer, as well as HEAR the performer. On a CD alone, the listener cannot observe the musicians' playing techniques. When I attend a concert, I expect to obtain (and feel that I am entitled to obtain) a greater sensory sensation than just listening to a CD. Thus, I was disappointed when I attended the Crimson concert at Merriweather in August '96 and couldn't see YOU! So, on the next tour, please remain in light. Thanks. Dan ------------------------------ From: Clark Mike Subject: Response to Fripp ET Poll Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 13:27:38 -0500 Dear ET, In response to Fripp's poll, I thought quite a bit about his questions and offer the following responses, with commentary to follow. I'll first state that this of course is just my personal opinion and I am sure many will disagree and I look forward to reading about other's opinions on these subjects. i) the nature of the fan's relationship to the musician is that the fan enjoys or derives some other benefit from the musician's recordings and performances and therefore avails himself of the opportunity to listen to the musicians recordings and attend performances as he/she wishes. It is the fan's decision to listen/not listen or attend/not attend. ii) the primary right of the fan is to expect that the musician makes a sincere/honest attempt to perform or record music. i.e if you buy a CD you expect to hear something (music?) on the CD, if you attend a concert you expect to hear the musicians play music for a reasonable length of time. It is the musicians choice to play music that suits the musician, not necessarily that which suits the fan. Of course, if the fan does not like the musician's music, he has the right not to listen and to become an un-fan if he so desires. iii) I feel that the responsibility of the audience during a performance would be that it not distract or otherwise hinder the musicians from playing or preparing to play their music. It is also their responsibility not to detract from others' enjoyment of the performance. iv) what I expect from my artists is a sincere attempt to make music which interests the performer. It is only my hope that the music also interests me, as I have no right to expect that "my artists" have any idea as to what might interest me for they do not know me. In fact, that is virtually my definition of "selling out" - that is, making music which is of little interest to the performer, but which is of great interest to the masses (which begets sales). The risk that the fan does not like the music is the risk a fan or potential fan takes when he purchases recorded music or attends a concert. v) see #4 above - I wouldnt expect anything different from Fripp than I would any other artist I am a fan of. I guess my general comment about the above Q&A is that it seems many of us fans expect more than we should from KC/Fripp. It may be that we expect him to say hello or talk to us if we bump into him, acknowledge his debt to us for becoming fans (ugh), or playing under a spotlight during performances (although I had a fine view at Merriweather with my binoculars, thank you) - to name just a few of the things I have seen complained about. I'd have to say that KC/Fripp have always exceeded my expectations as they not only gave honest performances (as opposed to "selling out"), but my hopes that I would also find the music enjoyable/appealing have always been met, hey, that's why I am a fan. Whew! All this Fripping about reminds me of a Fripp story. About 10 or so years ago I saw the LOCG at Gaston Hall (Georgetown U) in Washington DC. The previous day, the Washington Post music critic had written a fairly scathing review of the first LOCG album. I wish I had kept a copy of it, but as I (vaguely) remember it, the reviewer wrote that the music sounded as if it had been cranked out by machinery and that it was devoid of any humanistic quality, and therefore pretty boring - or something along those lines. Anyway, part way through the show, Fripp pulled out a copy of the review and held it up in front of the audience, read from it, and asked, "Who is this guy? Is he here tonight? I want to talk to him!" Well, obviously the guy wasnt there, or at least he failed to identify himself, but it provided a good laugh for the crowd. Cheers to all of you ETers MC ------------------------------ From: George Wiles/G33 Subject: Response to RF questions Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 11:31:42 -0500 Mr Fripp - I didn't find your return address on your recent post, so I'm relpying by way of TobyGram. As I see it... i) The relationship between audiant and performer should be symbiotic; the audiant receiving the benefit of the work performed, and the performer receiving feedback from the audiant, either overt (grunts and catcalls) or imagined (as in "wow, did you feel the energy tonite") in order to reach some level beyond performing by rote. In some instances the benefit to the performer may be as mundane as financing the rental hall, roadies and whatnot. Too often the relationship becomes parasitic when the audiant brings unrealistic expectations to the show, or the performer is less than scrupulous and delivers little entertainment for the price of admission. ii) The audience have all the rights implied by the professionalism of the performance. If you pay a hefty cover charge, you have the right to expect the performer to be on time, sober etc, or at least as expected or advertised beforehand, by reputation or otherwise. At a garage band or fraternity party, anything goes. iii) The audience has the responsibility of being well mannered (of course), knowledgeable (i.e. don't applaud before the coda kicks in), and willing to participate if requested. Above all, do no harm. iv) My expectations vary with the performer. I tend to bring hopes more than expectations, since I don't see myself as in immediate control of the situation. My hopes are for energetic, well rested performers playing in well chosen, properly set-up auditoriums. I do not expect the performer to cater to the LCD by playing "radio hits", but I do hope that the set list would be chosen to entertain, and not necessarily just to edify. v) See iv above. As always, I'm grateful that I find your work so very entertaining. I'm sure your work would continue without the likes of me, but my leisure would certainly suffer without you. Best wishes. George Wiles ------------------------------ Subject: response to Fripp's questions From: reive at phantom dot mindvox dot com (persephone) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 15:08:49 EST Organization: Phantom Access Technologies, Inc. / MindVox > Date: 13 Jan 97 05:16:45 EST > Subject: From Robert Fripp > > 1. Harvey Keitel and Kevin Spacey should play Fripp in "King Crimson: The > Movie", in alternating scenes. Who cares if anyone's confused? So does one get to play "the good Fripp" and one gets =to play "the bad Fripp" or is total randomization in order? > 2. Stop arguing about Fripp's attitude towards you, etc., and acknowledge > he's the greatest guitarist in the world. /me groans, terrified half this list is about to find out how humorless the other half is. > i) What is the nature of the relationship between the audience / enthusiast > / fan and the musician? It's one of imagination for the most part, because I don't think this is something that is generally discussed between the musician and his audience, and even when it is, I think the honesty or thoroughness of that discussion must be questioned. The relationship is both anonymous and intimate. For example, I have a friend who is a violinist, and I know him in any possible way I could think of knowing a person, but when he plays, it's as if I can't be in the room, because through playing he shows parts of himself that are profoundly personal, and not the type of thing that can be put into words. As an audience to his playing I find it overwhelming and have to close my eyes to be able to listen to him. When I see a musician who I do not know perform, in many ways it is easier -- more distance, fewer facts, but yet as an audience member I am still faced with that very personal moment. I think audience members deal with this in one of two ways, specifically choosing to know nothing except the music of the musician they appreciate or being voraciously interested in biographical information, as a way of grounding those personal moments witnessed in performance. For the musician, I can only think the relationship is one of trust - not so much in that a specific reaction from the audience can be trusted, but that there will be a reaction and an understanding that music, any music, is significant on some level for the performer, regardless of how many times a piece has been played, etc. > ii) What are the rights of the audience / enthusiast / fan? My first reaction is "none." Because I think art of any nature is personal. I think it's almost ridiculous for the enthusiast to expect anything particular from the artists they appreciate. That said, I think there are many things it would be nice to be able to expect, and perhaps not unreasonable to expect even if the right to do so is a fiction. I think the audience has a right not to have their enthusiasm for the work unfairly exploited economically. Mind you, this means different things to different people, and the audience should rely on their own intelligence (not that they always do) on this one. I think the audience should also expect that the musicians they appreciate continue to create for themselves and not specifically with the audience in mind. Newness and innovation and development should be expected, but this isn't really a right either. > iii) What are the responsibilities and obligations of the audience / enthusiast / fan? Honesty. None of this "well since I like this musician I must think each new thing he does is even better than the last." Independent thought. Respect-- this means good behavior at concerts (which seems to be a lost notion of respect along with dressing well to attend plays), not scalping tickets or bootlegging stuff (and NO, I'm not just jumping on that bandwagon around here, I just have too many friends who are musicians to be okay with that). It is the fans responsibility to remember that any notion of contract between the artist and fan is illusory and can be changed at any time by either. For as much as audiences appreciate music for its humanity, they so often forget that those creating the music are also human. I think most everyone's been guilty of that at some point. > iv) What do you personally, as an audient / enthusiast / fan expect of your > artists? I expect them to tour, despite the fact I know how taxing it is and can totally see why some people would definitely want to avoid that experience. I think the live phenomena of music is very important and conveys different things than recorded music, and I am personally disappointed if I don't have an opportunity to experience both from musicians I enjoy. > v) What do you personally, as a KC-RF audient / enthusiast / fan expect of > Robert Fripp? The nuances of English make this question read two ways. One could take it to mean "what do you anticipate" or "what would you like." What I anticipate, is innovation, complexity and a lot of intellectual writing. What I would like is always more music of course. Well, and a Guitar Craft Level I in North America. > No other musicians of my acquaintance or knowing read as widely as myself > the commentaries and chit-chat concerning them. My hunch is because, in > various ways and for various reasons, the musicians often get hurt, > sometimes injured, and even damaged. To put it another way, most public > commentary has negative "side" (in the country use of the word) to it. To > put it differently, the net benefit is negligible. And to get to net > benefit, you have to read it all. I don't see how anyone would want to read > it all for fun. > My personal approach is to either read everything or nothing. In between > can be harmful. If you read nothing, it doesn't reach you. If you do read > it all (pretty well) probably the net balance (in a love / hate, nice guy / > creep way) simply balances. I think it's also uncomfortable for many artists to read all this stuff because there comes a point where one asks "How do I react?" beyond creating more art. And frequently it does seem as if something more than that really is requested by the audience. I write, and have had stuff published on- and of- line. I adore the degree of feedback the online world provides me, however, it has been a keen education in how much people expect the moment they identify with one fifteen minute mood an artist they respect and/or enjoy has had. This in turn has certainly made me more aware of my behavior towards those artists I enjoy and respect, and it has made me more aware that even though I may not owe anything to those who enjoy my work other than continuing to do the work, it is very easy to become besieged by a feeling of obligation. It's not something an artist can refuse to draw lines regarding if they want any time to be creative and uphold their obligations to themselves. -Racheline -- Racheline Maltese | "My neighbor with no arms wanted reive at phantom dot com | to know how it feels to let rmaltese at cypher dot net | someting go." http://www.phantom.com/~reive | -Jeffrey McDaniel ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 22:26:43 +0100 (MET) From: poisson at club-internet dot fr (Thomas Poisson) Subject: Robert Fripp - a letter Dear Robert, First of all, thank you for writing to us. Artists are often thought to be living in their own intimate world, insensitive to the emotions expressed by the people who appreciate their work. All the attention you put into reading what people say about your art, and the way you accept negative and positive comments, shows that before being an artist, you are a human and sincere person. My opinion on some of the issues you raised: You feel emotions and translate them into music. If we like the music you play, it moves us, make us think, dance, sing or whatever. So we react to something you create. When we come to a concert, we applaud, we sing along, it is a way to show you what we feel. It is a way for us to give you feedback, and whenever the feedback amplifies the emotion you expressed in the first place, I guess this is where the relationship between the audience and the artist is established. It happens only when the performer and the audience remain true to their feelings at the moment the music is played. If you translate quiet emotions, audience should react quietly, if you play agressive music, we should react accordingly, etc. When a group of people play music, an entity is created that is (or should be) more than the sum of its parts. As for your role within KC, I think you are here to ensure that fundamental KC values are met whenever KC plays something (IMHO): eclectism, intensity, honesty, as well as to find new musical ideas and directions for the group. Hard to think of KC without you, because you are the only link between what KC was, what it is now, and what it means to us all. Thanks for listening. Thomas Poisson ------------------------------ From: Terrence Dorsey Subject: Response to Mr. Fripp Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 09:33:35 -0800 Mr. Fripp, in answer to your queries: i) The nature of the relationship between the audience and the musician is ephemeral and based upon the performance. The musician may choose to perform for an audience. If members of the audience place value on the performance, they may seek out additional opportunities to experience the musician's work. (Performer might be a better term, as this relationship applies equally to many disciplines - musicians, actors, athletes, authors, and so on.) Any relationship exists only during the performance as the audience observes the musician's work. Due to the economic structure of our society, performers may receive payments for performing, and audiences often pay to attend performances (or purchase them, in the case of prerecorded media). This in no way alters the relationship between the performer and the audience. ii) The audience has no explicit rights with regard to the performer or the performance. iii) The audience is obligated to honor the copyright protections for a performer's work. (In my opinion, the audience also ought to treat other audience members and the performer with the respect due to any stranger, including respect for the individual's privacy.) iv) As an enthusiast or fan, I don't have any expectations of the performer. I hope that there will other performances, and that they will be as enjoyable or engaging as previous performances. But I have no right to expect anything. v) I sincerely hope that Robert Fripp will continue making music that I enjoy. I expect that Robert Fripp will do whatever he wants to achieve his goals. In closing, I don't understand the proprietary attitude some people have toward performers. You have presented a large body of work, some of which I enjoy, and some of which I don't. That doesn't bother (or surprise) me, and I doubt it bothers you much either. Good luck with your present and future work. terry dorsey terrend at microsoft dot com -- The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation ------------------------------ From: khoffman at giantfood dot com (Kurt Hoffman) In the continuing series of responses to Fripp's questions, I now offer my response to question two. 2) What rights does a fan have- If we continue with the logic put forth in my analysis of the relationship between the fan and the artist, the question of what rights a fan has seems to be a relatively simple issue. The fan, as consumer, has the right to purchase or not purchase. This is the only logical right a fan has within the relationship, unless the artist chooses to offer the fan additional rights. There is no implied rights of the consumer inherent in the process of the consumption of art, with the exception of the guarantee of a physical quality that does not render the art unusable (for example, a defective compact disc would empower the fan with the right to demand either a replacement disc or a refund, depending on the policies of the merchant who handled the transaction. This in no way reflects on the rights a fan has relative to the artist who created the contents of the disc). However, if the artist grants the fan additional rights, the fan is entitled to the free use of those rights so long as they are continued by the artist. The only other rights a fan has related to the artist is the right to an opinion of the artist and the artist's product, and the ability to convey that opinion. The ability for the fan to express those opinions is related to the level of freedom available within the given social structure where the fan resides; and once again is in no way directly related to any right between fan and artist. Perhaps a more viable question is what rights does the fan not have. The fan does not have the right to any level of intrusion toward the artist; the sole exception to this is if the society in which the fan resides treats the artist as a product, which empowers the fan with certain additional rights, mostly related to what constitutes slander or defamation. The fan does not (in many countries) have the right to reproduce the work of an artist for the personal profit or gain of the fan, though is often granted the right to reproduce for private use the works of an artist (for example the transfer of a compact disc to tape may be done for the sake of the use of the tape by the owner of the compact disc, but not for any resale or other distribution that would prove damaging to the artist. While this would imply that the creating of a tape which was then redistributed without the issue of personal gain is not within the rights of the fan (since it damages the artist in that it prevents the transaction whereby the artist makes his livelihood), the reality of the situation precludes the uninforcability of laws related toward the prohibiton of this duplication. This lack of inforcability does not bestow upon a fan that right, it merely provides a situation whereby the fan is able to stretch the boundry of the right without being held accountable). An additional aspect of this is related to the concept of sampling, and I don't want to go into this issue. For an extremely in-depth study of this situation, interested parties should turn to the book "The letter U and the number 2", which chronicals the lengthy legal manuverings that lead to the lawsuits related to the concept "fair use"- however it is a fairly biased work. Suffice it to say that once a fan has moved to the point that the fan is now manipulating the product of an artist towards the ends of creating a new piece of art, the fan has ceased to be a fan within the definition of "fan" and has moved to a new level of relationship. Many fans hold that they are entitled, by virtue of their "fanness" and their consumption of product to a level of interactivity with the artist. This condition may in fact exist, but to have the right for that situation to exist the condition must be agreed to by the artist. Kurt ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:30:45 -0500 (EST) From: MuadDib107 at aol dot com Subject: Answers? to RF's Questions Well, here goes. . . "i) What is the nature of the relationship between the audience / enthusiast / fan and the musician?" Hmm. This depends on what one's personal view of music should be: a) Simply a form of personal expression, b) One of the many entertainment fields, or c) Somewhere in between the two. View "a" has led to most of the real innovation and creativity in music in the last few decades. View "b" has resulted in the proliferance of the crud that occupies the pop charts, especially as seen in the late 80's. While "a" may benefit the artist in allowing for expression, "b" may do so in a different (financial) way. "c" has the capability to cover the above benefits as well as benfitting society. I'm sure most would agree that most of the "great" (of course this depends on one's own opinions, but I'm speaking here of the bands which are common to most such lists) bands of the last few decades fall into category "c". And, category "c" is the only category in which any real relationship between the artist and the audience exists. Ideally, this relationship would go as follows: Artist creates work, based on expression, and develops fans / audience / whatever. Fans provide feedback. Artist uses feedback to think of possible improvements in work. Cycle continues. If feedback negative, artist has option to consider or ignore. If fans are lost, there're always more out there (If you don't want to buy it, you may!). Non-ideally, $ comes into the whole thing. After artist develops fans, changes lifestyle, fans become a necessity (possibly). Artist loses options. Or, rather, has different option: lose fans, go back to old lifestyle; or, cater to fans, keep lifestyle. I think this, while overly simplified, sums up what goes on. "ii) What are the rights of the audience / enthusiast / fan?" I don't know if they have any rights, really. Other than to purchase the artist's work or attend the artist's concerts etc. After that, everything is under the artist's control. "iii) What are the responsibilities and obligations of the audience / enthusiast / fan?" For category "c" to honestly work, I believe that the audience is obligated to provide their honest opinions on the music. Specifically, to not support Band A simply because their friends support Band A. And, of course, to be open minded and not hate disco/rap/rock/country/etc as an entire genre -- develop opinions on a band-by-band basis. And, I guess, to cover the non-idealities, they should remember that they need to support the Artist financially, e.g. buy the albums for themselves. However, this is only if they wish to partake in the whole thing. If they don't care about the financial status of the Artist, then they are free to copy from friends etc, provided they aren't upset when the Artist is bankrupt and resorts to TV commercials for the Psychic Friends Network. "iv) What do you personally, as an audient / enthusiast / fan expect of your artists?" I enjoy live shows, so I expect artists to tour. And, having only recently turned 21, I expect them to play at least one non-21+ venue in each city. I should say "hope" instead of "expect", but it makes me angry enough when the Artist doesn't come to my city / play in all ages venue that I think I've come to expect it. I also hope that the Artist (or group of Artists) continues to release new material. This material should be at least 50% related to previous material *in some way*. Other than that, there should be something new and exciting about it. Why bother with more if it's exactly the same? I use "hope" here because the artist doesn't necessarily know what I find "new and exciting" -- maybe I just don't get it, etc. "v) What do you personally, as a KC-RF audient / enthusiast / fan expect of Robert Fripp?" I think, most of all, I expect that he never lets himself fall into category "b". I don't see it happening any time soon, but nevertheless. The answer to question "iv" also applies here. I hope that each new RF/KC release is different, and breaks new ground, but has some ties to the previous releases. Also, KC being the band that it is/was/will be, this "new ground" should not only be new to the band, but the entire "rock" music world. KC has always been at the front of this world, and I'd be disappointed if they were to fall behind. Not that I'm too worried about that either. Oh, secondly, I think that if RF ever starts feeling that maybe he should call it quits, there's no more music to be made, he can't stand the lifestyle anymore, whatever, then he should do so. It is possible that the music produced under such circumstances might still be interesting and ground-breaking, but I really don't want to see it happen. RF has done enough for the music world that, when he feels he should do so, he's earned his retirement. Please don't take that to mean that I think he should retire any time soon! no no no. Well, I hope that's not too much. It's up to Toby I guess if these get posted or forwarded to RF. Just so you know who wrote this: Taylor Sherman. 21 years old, electrical engineering student from Seattle who lives in NYC. Plays bass, guitar, keyboard, wants a Stick (R). KC/etc fan since 1995. (woo hoo! :) ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 1997 17:02:44 -0700 From: "Jim Bricker" Subject: The Fripp'ed-Kicker Five Robert, thanks for your interest in our opinions. It's nice to see someone in your business actively reaching out to see what his fans think. You may wish to consider that my opinions are those of an "audience / enthusiast/ fan" and not a musician. i) What is the nature of the relationship between the audience / enthusiast/ fan and the musician? >From the fan's standpoint, the musician is an entertainer. How well he entertains is left to the "eye of the beholder." If the musician seeks to survive solely on income generated from his/her music, then the relationship is one of dependence; he/she would deeply care what the fan thought or else he/she might starve, or at least seek alternate and perhaps less enjoyable means of bread-winning. Should the musician not be dependent upon fan income to put bread on the table, then the relationship is casual... similar to an acquaintance with whom you'd only share small talk rather than discuss the deeper things in your life. ii) What are the rights of the audience / enthusiast / fan? With the musician defined as entertainer, there are no inherent rights in being a fan. Sure, there are desires or preferences, but not rights. iii) What are the responsibilities and obligations of the audience /enthusiast / fan? As relates to the music produced by the musician, our responsibilities and obligations are defined by how the music touches our lives. We might recommend a CD or a concert, for instance. As relates to the musician as a person, our responsibilities and obligations are the same as we'd have to any person. The audience /enthusiast / fan should respect the musician's boundaries; the musician is an individual and not a personal whipping post or play thing we should expect to bend to our every whim. IMHO, this forum has, at times, crossed the boundaries of friendly discussion of opinions and gone into the realm of personal podiums for bitching and whining... wanting you or Adrian or someone else to behave in certain manners. iv) What do you personally, as an audience / enthusiast / fan expect of your artists? Outstanding live and recorded performances; outstanding in terms of audio quality, and in terms of performance capability (chops!). v) What do you personally, as a KC-RF audience / enthusiast / fan expect of Robert Fripp? see above For me to really enjoy a musician's recorded or live work, I like to see them do something a little different or unexpected, and to also see the performers enjoy playing their music. That's what I'd prefer, and I'd prefer it if concerts and CDs lived up to my preference. But that's not what I expect. What I expect is different than what I want. I *want* this KC line-up to do "Starless," "Fracture," "Sartori in Tangier" live in concert. But if they don't, I'm not gonna bitch and whine about it. I *expect* them, based on experience now, to go out and blow the audience away with a show that is markedly different than inviting 5,000 people to my house and playing the B'BOOM double-disc set. I told my friends that the first two double trio KC concerts I saw were the musical equivalents of being assaulted... it was so powerful! But a whole evening of "Blessing of Tears" type material could be just as powerful. Thanks again for your interest. I hope this note finds you and yours healthy and happy. Regards, Jim Bricker San Jose, CA. ------------------------------ End of Elephant-Talk Digest #333 ********************************