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 #340 E L E P H A N T T A L K The Internet newsletter for Robert Fripp and King Crimson enthusiasts Number 340 Tuesday, 4 February 1997 SPECIAL ISSUE Replies from ETers to Robert Fripp's post in ET#328 (part seven) ------------------ 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: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 00:41:52 -0500 From: Tom Lewis Subject: Roberts request >Would ET readers be kind enough to consider, and respond, to these >questions: > >i) What is the nature of the relationship between the audience / >enthusiast >/ fan and the musician? Music/performance. Towards their best each paying attention. Towards their worst each seeking the attention of the other. > >ii) What are the rights of the audience / enthusiast / fan? > The right to pay to enter a performance venue. The right to cooperate with the dictates of decent behavior by not infringing on anothers rights for which they too have paid. The right to also listen. Even the right to participate in its role as audience. >iii) What are the responsibilities and obligations of the audience / >enthusiast / fan? see number ii >iv) What do you personally, as an audient / enthusiast / fan expect of >your >artists? nothing >v) What do you personally, as a KC-RF audient / enthusiast / fan expect of >Robert Fripp? nothing >Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:11:17 +0000 (GMT) >From: Markus Schneemann >Subject: Proposal for an organised/DISCIPLINEd answer to RF > >Because it is likely that hundreds of ETers will answer, and this may end >in undigestable newsletters I propose to do a kind of organized OPINION >POLL with a STANDARDIZED QUESTIONNAIRE which is put onto the elephant talk >website seperately from the newsletter. I can't swallow this. Tom Lewis Athens, GA ------------------------------ From: strthry at afm dot org Subject: Reply to RF Organization: Amer. Fed. of Musicians Date: Mon, 27 Jan 97 02:57:28 EST i) What is the nature of the relationship between the audience / enthusiast / fan and the musician? The relationship has the nature of a collaboration or possibly a communion. ii) What are the rights of the audience / enthusiast / fan? To respond appropriately and enthusiastically, if so moved. (Possibly the a/e/f also has the right to appreciate the event without interference, but probably we only have the right to enjoy the disturbance...And in any case, this is not a right the artist can grant.) iii) What are the responsibilities and obligations of the audience / enthusiast / fan? To have some understanding of the meaning of being an a/e/f and what is required (if anything) in terms of preparation for that role. To pay attention. Not to let expectations interfere with the actual experience. To respond appropriately and enthusiastically, if so moved. iv) What do you personally, as an audient / enthusiast / fan expect of your artists? That they be true to their vision. That should they undertake public presentations, they prepare themselves as well as they can. v) What do you personally, as a KC-RF audient / enthusiast / fan expect of Robert Fripp? Incredible guitar playing, unexpected leaps of imagination, applied craft on all levels, a certain quality of attention. A couple of last thoughts: Rights exist on the basis of a covenanted or contracted relationship, freely entered into. The simple contract of a ticket to a show, for example, is generally not directly between the artist and the ticketholder. So the a/e/f has the right to expect the other party in that contract to provide an appropriate, agreed upon venue and conditions for the collaboration/communion to take place. But we must expect that of the promoter/ticketseller, not the artist. The steps between us and our heroes are more complex than we may realize (there are also agents in between, for example). If we buy something directly from the artist, we can ask questions, and judge their responses. Artistic relationships are very direct, but not personal - they are mediated by other factors: for example, the medium/muse, and the industry that puts the works before the public. (Personal relationships with artists can be confusing, as Racheline has noted, and Matt has experienced.) And for those accustomed to Wellies, maybe try taking 'em off and enjoy the sensation of the farmyard (even the cowpies!) on your feet - which are, after all, also washable. Watch out for rusty nails, though... -String Theory ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 06:50:30 -0500 (EST) From: "David A. Fessler and the CBS Orchestra" Subject: Robert's message I have been a lurker here on ET for almost two years now, but Robert Fripp's latest message has prompted me to speak out since the issues he speaks of are close to my own heart. Since we are all now aware that Robert does read these comments, I will address mine to him. Robert, I was very much struck by your response to Matt's message. I have a much different lifestyle from yours, and our perspectives on certain issues differ accordingly, but the whole field of interpersonal relations is one that has dominated my life for quite some time. I, and many other fans, greatly appreciate your openness and candor in addressing this topic. Even ignoring (for now) the relationship between artist and audience, I sense that you have a strong grasp of yourself and your interactions with others. I found mature, sophisticated ideas in your latest message, such as the recognition that your liking and disliking of people is a reflection of yourself, and that behavior can only be judged while considering the context in which it is occurring. And your willingness to take the time to explain yourself to those who misunderstand your motivations is commendable. All of these things point to a person who is very conscious of himself and his actions. What I would like to ask you is how you regard the concept of human decency. You have explained very cogently how fans often hold warped expectations of you. And I accept and agree with this. I, for one, would never have approached you or any other artist in the situation described by Matt. But personally, I can not think of a scenario in which I would refuse to acknowledge the existence of another human being; especially one who admired me and my work as much as these people do you. I'm not saying that you have an obligation to do this; I am not judging your behavior at all. I simply do not understand your perspective on this matter. Do you place music on a higher plane than the momentary happiness of a stranger? Does the sheer number of fans invading your privacy eventually make you lose sight of this? Or is it a conscious choice not to reward behavior which you consider inappropriate? I understand that celebrity always involves a loss of privacy. What I would like to know is how you feel about the balance among your privacy, their happiness, and the behavior of everyone involved. I would greatly like to hear your thoughts along these lines either in a public or private forum, and I thank you for considering my message. Dave Fessler ,,, .-------------------------------------ooO(o o)Ooo---------. / David A. Fessler fess at umich dot edu (_) / / daf104 at york dot ac dot uk / / http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fess/Index.html / / / / "I bought a house on a one-way dead-end road. / / I don't know how I got there." / / -Stephen Wright / .*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 11:59 GMT From: NMD at NEWTON dot NPL dot CO dot UK (Neil Durant) Subject: Re: Robert Fripp's comments I've been lurking quietly for some time on this list, but the latest exchanges have prompted me to post my thoughts... Firstly I'd like to thank Robert for such a detailed response to the various criticisms directed towards him. I'd say that's Robert 1, Matt nil! Why can't people just show Robert the respect he shows for music? The fact of him writing and performing good music we all like doesn't mean we should expect him to act like a "pop star". Isn't writing the music enough for us? We're all just used to musicians turning into celebrities, and think of it as the natural progression, but why? At least Robert and friends continue to produce consistently good music without selling out (unless you regard releasing four versions of the same song on different albums selling out...) And regarding the comments about Bono and friends, I imagine if they had been at that concert, mingling with the public in the same way, I'm sure they would have been a little more "direct" in their response to constant interruption! I don't think anyone can accuse Robert of having an unpleasant nature, or disliking people. OK, back into lurk mode.... Neil Durant nmd at newton dot npl dot co dot uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 23:29:44 +1100 (EST) From: Sean Curtin Subject: We are not just talking to amongst ourselves. ET'ers did you wet your pants like I did when Robert actually replied? Ok please forgive me Mr Fripp. It's just that I am a huge fan like most of the other ET'ers here. Well you wanted to know opinions on the musicians,fans, etc. When people enjoy music it becomes almost if not sacrid to them. I have no real problem dealing with the fact the generators, creators, composers, engineers, artists, may be people with bad attitudes or seem rather obnoxious, arrogant etc. I am not saying that you or KC are these things of course. You have mentioned in your notes in A blessing of tears that music is one of the voices of redemption which is an actual event. To me and to every one, there is no denial that music enjoyed by the listener forms a bond which is never truly broken. Dear Mr Fripp and listeners let us please not become too focussed on the views of ourselves, acts towards one another hard feelings etc. Let us instead focus on that which binds all of us one way or another. MUSIC. A final note directed to Fripp(as to KC I don't beleive they share like views), and Et'ers for contemplation. It seems to me that Robert seems to hold a state of nutrality towards fans and the audience. If that is the case then what is the point in feedback and our views if you take an uneffected attitude? Just one request. If you or the band ever have the time, please perform in Australia. There is a multitude of fans here that would be ever in your gratitude. If plans have already been made then thanks. If not then thankyou for taking the time to read this and THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE MUSIC. Last note. My views if at all important are: Fripp I think your a swell guy please continue to deliver time and time again your undying attitude towards the enhancment of music and the perfection of the guitar. Both services have provided many (as you have seen from reading ET) contributions to music. Myself for one would like to tell you that you have most definately paid the debt of your existence many times over. As to King Crimson. This collective of musicians has taken music on a path which had to be troden. This path I believe is the most important one of all. The road less travelled by. Thanks also to all the ET writers and readers, you have all made this collective one of value. May we all live constructive lives to stop human kind from destruction! Sean Curtin. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 10:20:24 -0500 From: "Gordon Emory Anderson" Subject: Transaction language & The performance In all of the discussion about the rights/expectations/etc... of the audience vs performer, I was annoyed by the fact that some of the most important aspects of this relationship were ignored.q This is due, in part, by the language (and surrounding culture) which would try to place this relationship within the realm of economical transaction. Music is something far more primitive and basic within us, so it ultimately can not be spojen of in this fashion. In the greatest performances i have seen (in Jazz, Rock, Opera & Classical, Indian and, in particular Gospel music), there is an odd resonance that occurs that reaches a very intimate part of the listener and the audience. When it occurs, both audience and performer are touched almost equally, if not differently. It is an experience that "performers" often try to simulate with "showstopping songs" and theatrics. My problem with the discussions has been that in focusing on the division (ie, money) between artist/perfomer, we have ignored this primal, tribal function of music. I believe Fripp in his wondrous ramblings has discussed this experience. The real truth of the matter is that in societies that are much closer to this truth, everyone (or much of the community) participates in music. This expereince, then, transcends the normal notion of "artist" and "audient".In our fragmented and idolatrous culture, these groups are distinct, but still sometimes the experience emerges. My point in my own ramblings is to note that the real function of music requires both audience and artist: the client, er....audient is not merely a passive recipient of what the server, i mean artist distributes. The audience in part generates the space in which music can happen, the artist paints in this space. Both are required, and not totally distinct. What i think fripp may be driving at is that in our societyit is easy for relationships to be formed that would negate the possibility of this experience. If a guitarist is simply playing the role of rock god (rather than also listening for the abovementioned experience), then he has annhilated the possibility of the wondrous experience from occurring. He has eaten away at the deeper, tribal social bonds and has accelerated the deterioration of our society. In short, the audience/performer may have few direct responsibilities to each other, but both must repect the space in which true music occurs. Sorry for the sermon. -Emory. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 12:29:22 -0500 (EST) From: "I Only Paint What I See..." Subject: Late answers for RF... Hey Bob Fripp, To answer the questions you posed, I would address the issue of "Art as Commodity." Brief: The only obligations an artist has toward his audience are those he accepts when he produces work in exchange for something (Whether that be money, goods, acclaim, or what have you.). Verbose: The issue is that of Artist as Artisan: providing something of value to others who can (or do) not make their living from producing Art. The Blacksmith uses his fabrication skills to provide tools. The Artist (as Artisan) uses his skills in creation to provide elements of artistic value. Others need or desire these things, but are unable (Whether due to lack of skills, resources, or opportunity,) to produce them for themselves, and so offer something in exchange. The value associated with such an item is determined by agreement between the producer and the consumer. Items that are the result of greater effort are usually assigned a greater value. Items "made-to-order" to fit the needs of a particular consumer are assigned even greater value, but often require compromise on the part of the producer. The Artist has an obligation only to determine how much influence he will allow his audience to have on his Art. This decision may be reached as a result of maintaining one's "livelihood", but it is always the individual's choice. You could always fripp -er flip 'burgers at McDonald's... ;-) You have willingly exchanged some degree of creative control over your music for the opportunity to interact with a group of other Artists, the organization known as "King Crimson". The amount of creative control you have negotiated is based on each member's concept of the value of each other member's potential to contribute to the Work. This negotiation may be informal, unspoken, and all but invisible, but it exists, and is probably an ongoing, continuously developing process. Some might even consider this to be part of the Art: To perform this negotiation in a way which results in some work of value to the audience. (Information concerning such negotiations between Bruford and Fripp have been made public in the past.) In any case, your obligations to the Audience, in this situation, are determined in part by your obligation to the other members of the band. Again, such obligations are negotiable, and are always a matter of your own personal choice. As an Audient (Neologism is cool!), I also have the choice to define my obligations to you, the Artist. I have the ability to choose whether or not to purchase recordings, or to pay to attend performances. I can praise or prang the quality of the work. Further, I may choose to pay whatever amount of attention I feel appropriate to the work that such recordings and performances represent. I can allow them the briefest and most superficial of auditions, or I may spend a large amount of effort and attention on them. The more "use" I can make of them, the better value I have received. When the Audience is comprised of only a few members, then more significance can be attributed to the response of each Audient. If you were to produce work strictly for my appreciation, then my response (Criticism, applause...) would have more value, and therefore more weight in the negotiation. In such a case, I might feel obliged to respond with polite praise, even if aspects of the Work dissapointed me or were of little value to me. (I often wonder if performers are offended by polite applause in very small audience situations. I think if I were performing, I would prefer honest responses, even if such responses were to "Play something interesting!") In the case of King Crimson's music, I must say that I have found very little need for compromise. Robert, I find your work to be of the highest personal value, and your participation in a forum such as this, (Which I find, can add value in and of itself,) adds even more value to my perception of what you have produced. Summation: King Crimson music is an excellent value. Try some today! (I have purposely avoided addressing the issue of how such music affects both the producer and consumer. That topic is sublime in nature, but does not really impact the discussion at hand.) Sincerely, facetiously, and with utter affection, _Dave_ Postscript: I believe that the opportunity to hear a live performance of Starless would be of extremely high value to me. Can we negotiate? Post-Postscript to Toby: Thanks for accepting this huge undertaking! Your ET-related workload under normal circumstances is probably larger than you'd like. I, for one am grateful for your efforts. You, like Fripp & KC, deserve more appreciation. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 14:41:10 +0000 From: khoffman at giantfood dot com (Kurt Hoffman) Subject: Fripp question #3 What are the responsibilites of the fan? To keep it very short, the fan should do nothing that the fan does not have the right to do. This seems simple enough (having already dealt with the "stretching" of the right to duplicate, I'll not repeat myself), but the whole issue encounters problems in two areas; 1) The shifting value of rights based on the society in which the fan has entered into a relationship with the artist, and 2) The shifting value of rights based on the conditional occurance of the fans consumption. I will avoid the first, since it would be foolish to actively consider the myriad possibilites inherent within that focus (ie in some societys it may be acceptable within the society for a fan to cut Fripp's hands off for playing the devil's music!), and instead concentrate on one narrow field, that of the process of concert attendence (for one hot issue on ET it has been the act of consuming bands in a live forum, and it seems to me to be where the question is leading). A fan has, as previously stated, any right that has been granted to the fan. This does not imply that the fans has the right to a right not granted to the fan by virtue of the unenforcability of the occurance where the fan takes a right the fan does not posess. But since attending a live performance occupies a unique set of rules, this imposes greater guidelines (I do not use the word restrictions since, as should be obvious in a moment, sometimes the act of a live performance forces an increase in interactivity which may not be within the fan's rights) upon the occurance. To attempt brevity (ha) I will use one example and then hopefully leave this question. Much has been made of the concepts of audience societal "politeness" (the idea of doing as little as possible in a concert environment to disturb other fans or the artist). However, instances may occur whereby the lack of a fan participating adversely impacts other fans rights to a more active participation. These subjective rights are rights which may have been bestowed by the artist, but are more likely the result of a phenomenon whereby a group of fans creates a society within the framework of the attendance of a concert, and within that society new rights are created (the drum troups at Grateful Dead shows springs immediately to mind). In this instance mutually contradictory sets of rights may collide, the rights of the passive fan versus the rights of the active fan, the rights of the artist versus the rights of the active fan, and the rights of the artist versus the rights of the passive fan. Since a fan's responsibility is determined by the fan's rights, these issues are important in determining what is the reponsibility of the fan. So, to answer the question, the responsibilies of the fan are, in my opinion, too directly related to conditional rights to be assigned a clear answer. Ultimately, the responsibilities of a fan are not to commit acts which are outside of the rights of the fan, as defined by whatever agent acts upon the fan to establish those rights. ------------------------------ From: Matt Walsh Subject: Robert Fripp's Questions Date: Mon, 27 Jan 97 14:48:00 PST Usually, I wouldn't respond much to a message like this, especially since I know the response is/will be overwhelming, but since a reply has been asked from Mr. Fripp himself, I wish to grant his request and get a little off my chest, hopefully giving this from a different perspective. A lot of these questions kind of combine together into a similar answer, so I'll try my best not to be too redundant. "Would ET readers be kind enough to consider, and respond, to these questions: i) What is the nature of the relationship between the audience / enthusiast / fan and the musician? Well, I think Pink Floyd's "the Wall" was a prime example. Whether we like it or not, there is some sort of invisible wall separating the audience from the musician. This is not neccesarily a bad thing. It is up to a combined effort from the artist and audience whether all or part of this wall is to be taken down. The relationship is different for each artist and each audience of that artist. I will be a little more descript below in question III. ii) What are the rights of the audience / enthusiast / fan? The only rights the audience/fan has is to form their own opinion about the music. The audience has no right to the music/performance at all. If the audience does not like the concert/album, than it up to the "fan" whether to continue supporting the artist. Now this brings the other side of this: the rights of the artist (I'm suprised you didn't ask that question). The artists rights are to play whatever the hell they want. But the artists must realize that there is a consequence to playing what you want if it is not what the crowd wants, and understand and accept that consequence. A primary example of this is the band Mr. Bungle. Mr. Bungle's audience tends to heavily be geared towards the band's first album. Mr. Bungle doesn't want to play material from their first album, and plays songs from their new album as well as some rather bizarre cover songs, only playing one song from the 1st album. Mr. Bungle is playing what they want, but in turn they are getting heckled from their own audience, as songs from the first album are constantly being yelled out. While I feel the audience should respect the artist and not "heckle" the band, Mr. Bungle is playing what they want with the understanding that the people in the audience may never come see them again. While I was dissapointed when I saw Mr. Bungle (their first album is a masterpiece), I respected them for playing what they wanted. If you can't be true to yourself musically, then why play? King Crimson probably faces a similar situation as older material (minus the instrumentals) do not get played until 21CSM recently. It is King Crimson's choice what songs they play live, at the consequence of losing the "fan". While I have a set of things I want to see/hear when I see King Crimson or any other band play live, I have no right to hear them. I may never hear "The Great Deceiver" live, but it is not my decision that King Crimson plays it. As for off-stage, the artist has right to his privacy. Growing up musicians/stars seem larger than life. Meeting someone famous was a huge deal. Now that I'm older, when musicians I admire walk by me I tend not to say anything. While I don't see anything wrong with the fan saying thank you or asking for an autograph (depending on the environment in which they do so). But it is also the artists' right to privacy. Maybe you need to be in the shoes of Robert Fripp to really understand why he may not want to be confronted all the time. I happen to play in a band and welcome people to talk to me after the show, I hope people come up to me after the show and am usually a little dissapointed when people don't, only because I like to get feedback from people. I would sign autographs if for some strange reason people wanted it. But this is just me, and I don't have thousands of fans coming after me all the time. Maybe if I ever get "famous" I will adapt a "'tude" similar to Fripp's iii) What are the responsibilities and obligations of the audience / enthusiast / fan? I don't really think the fan has any responsibilities or obligations. Common respect to the crowd as a whole is more the way to look at it. I may be coming from a different perspective than the rest of this list. My musical tastes are insanely diverse and because of that I have adapted to all kinds of "crowds". I've been into "metal" music for a long time, and the crowds at a metal show tend to be loud, aggressive, and very mobile. "mosh pits" are very commonplace at metal shows. While I don't care too much for someone running full speed into me, I know that this is commonplace, therefore I respect the crowds "right" (for lack of a better term) to mosh. If I choose to get toward the front of the stage, it is knowing and understanding what the crowd is and knowing that I can be slammed into or smacked into by a crowd surfer. The same goes for alternative and punk shows. Now, I am also into artists such as King Crimson, Bela Fleck & The Flecktones, and John Zorn. For audiences of these artists, they tend to sit and listen. This is commonplace for these types of artists and I respect that. Maybe because of going to shows of all styles, nothing would bother me at a show. If a mosh pit broke out at a King Crimson show, it would not bother me (but would leave me thoroughly confused). But as I said earlier, there should be a common courtesy to the crowd majority. If the King Crimson crowd sits and listens, than the concertgoer should sit and listen, too. If everyone stands, well, you should stand, too. We can't cater to everyone's desires, so treat it like a vote. Of course, this common courtesy should extend to the performers, but I don't think the crowds behavior should be defined by the artist. iv) What do you personally, as an audient / enthusiast / fan expect of your artists? I personally don't expect anything from "my" artist. What I HOPE from the artist is fresh material and a good live show. If you play music that is boring, old, or not thought-provoking to me anymore, I will no longer buy your material (like Metallica). If you continue to play fresh material and music which excites me, I will continue to buy more, perhaps more than usual (like John Zorn or King Crimson) v) What do you personally, as a KC-RF audient / enthusiast / fan expect of Robert Fripp? I do not expect anything from Robert Fripp. I HOPE he plays to the highest of his abilities, and continues to release material that I find exciting. My words to Robert Fripp are similar to those I have mentioned to Adrian Belew concerning his post. I tend to like most of the stuff that King Crimson releases. There are songs from King Crimson that I do not like. I tend not to like material that King Crimson members release outside of King Crimson (though there are some I really do like). Robert Fripp should just be himself and record/play whatever he wants to. I will buy the stuff from Robert Fripp that I like and will not buy what I don't like. Robert Fripp (and any other musician) must be true to himself, because if he worries about what others think about his music, his music will suffer. Anyway, I know this incredibly long, but I hope that this has brought a different perspective to the whole debate, and I hope I have give Mr. Fripp what he was looking for. Thank you, Robert, for the music you have created that has fulfilled my musical appetite over the years. If anyone has comments that they feel is not worthy of ET publishing, feel free to respond directly to me. Matt Walsh mattw at smginc dot com Annoying co-workers with: Amorphis - "Elegy" ------------------------------ From: kay_sahagian at mail dot systemone dot com (kay_sahagian) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 17:22:30 -0500 Subject: Response to Fripp's Questions >3. Would ET readers be kind enough to consider, and respond, to these >questions: Before I do, I have to point out: I can't be the only ET'er paying enough attention to notice that Fripp's note to the Team was written on King Crimson's 28th birthday. After all, "very little" in his life is arbitrary. Surely, I should get extra credit, or something! By the way, I think the most important question Fripp posed to us is the one he didn't pose: "what is the aim of having ET'ers identify the elements of the audience / musician relationship?" Here we go. >i) What is the nature of the relationship between the audience / >enthusiast / fan and the musician? There are really two answers here. The first considers the ideal, the second describes what is the general current standard. A. Like all human interaction, the relationship between the audience and musician is based on trust. The audience trusts the musician to create, divine, or produce music that satisfies the audience's needs, by whatever means the musician sees fit. The musician trusts that should he find, produce, or create the music that serves his own needs, he shall find an audience, whether of one or of eighteen million, who reward his discovery with attention, enthusiasm, welcome, interest, non-cynicism, and cash. B. The current relationship between most musicians and audiences sucks. The music never has a chance, because units need to be moved. The musician is no longer a musician, but a pusher of product. The audience buys the product because the radio, or TV, or their friends tell them it's good. The audience then judges the product based on what they've been told about the producer or product. >ii) What are the rights of the audience / enthusiast / fan? The audience has a right to bear witness to / to be a participant in a burning, or to be burned. You pay your money and you take your chance. The audience trades its trust and time and cash to the musician for its needs to be satisfied, and if they aren't, they are burned. When the music, artist, and audience come together, to click, then all parties are witness to a burning that satisfies the needs of the artist, the audience, and gives life to the music. This is all too rare. I was at the Savoy in New York in November 1981, and was witness to, and participated in, a burning. This has nothing to do with expectations, and everything to do with the responsibilities of the audience. >iii) What are the responsibilities and obligations of the audience / >enthusiast / fan? Continuing the previous point, the responsibilities of the audience are to lend trust to the artist, and if that trust is rewarded, to return the artist's trust placed in the audience. This trust to the artist is demonstrated by listening with attention, enthusiasm, and non-cynicism. This cynicism is where the expectations come in. Name your lamest "celebrity/performer/entertainer". If you were handed tickets to a performance by this "celebrity", what would your expectations be? That the "show" would be lame. Well, then you have not fulfilled your responsibilities as an audience. Because of this, you have negated the possibility of being a witness to / participating in a burning. iv) What do you personally, as an audient / enthusiast / fan expect of your artists? That they continue to crank out high-brow, snob-appeal product so that every time I post to ET, everyone can see how hip and brilliant I am because of what I listen to. No, I expect that they give a damn about returning the trust I have placed in their efforts by following or being led by their muse, and not by marketing reports. I may not like the direction the music takes, but I continue to place trust in the relationship. I think that's why we all read ET, and have the endless debates: "_Islands_ really works for me" or "the second half of _THRAK_ just kind of loses it for me". And we all keep coming back to KC, because, based on historical performance, even if we don't like this particular version, or love that particular album, we expect that our trust in the KC/RF name will be rewarded with efforts that are risky, honest and intense. Regarding all "my artists", if they don't return my trust, then I withdraw my trust, and they cease to be "my artists". Anyone who says they have "no" expectations of "their artists" is a liar. If one has no expectations then they "have" no artists, and every record store purchase or concert hall experience is a completely random, non-related event. v) What do you personally, as a KC-RF audient / enthusiast / fan expect of Robert Fripp? This is the easy one. I expect an individual in RF, or a band in KC, that gives its best shot every time out, regardless of who is in the band or what the musical environment is (KC v. Soundscapes, etc.). I expect a performance, whether on record or live, that takes risk. A KC/RF performance has a huge risk/reward ratio. KC/RF has always aimed extremely high, and when successful the successes are incredible, and yes, music "takes us into its confidence" . Yes, there are occasional misses. But the KC/RF brand name lends itself to the expectations that we all have of risk, reward, intensity, etc. of KC/RF and the trust that we give to and expect returned from KC/RF. Thanks for reading all this. It's not very fun. Kay Sahagian ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 97 17:01 EST From: Gary Mayne <0002508399 at mcimail dot com> Subject: RF Questions Dear ET'ers As audient with 27 years of KC/Fripp listening and several live concerts (KC 1970's tour, Crafty's and Thrak) behind him, I want to respond to one of Robert's questions: " What do you personally, as a KC-RF audient / enthusiast / fan expect of Robert Fripp?" As a fan/enthusiast, I have no expectations and accept every new work, in whatever format, as a gift, some more valued over time than others. Yet while I continue to enjoy and intensely admire Robert's soundscapes, his work with KC, SAOTW, The Fripp String Quintet etc., I have long felt that the underlying structure of Robert's music has as much in common with modern "serious" composers such as Adams, Andriessen, Part, Bryars, etc. as it does with pop/rock music. Accordingly, I have long wished that Robert would move into more extended compositional forms, expanding his use of instruments to include strings, brass etc. It is tantalizing to imagine Robert's music in a string quartet, small chamber orchestra or large scale symphonic setting, mixed with his formidable use of electronics. It would be most interesting to see how Robert would directly impact modern serious music. One senses is his work has already had some impact by influence on other composers. Perhaps a collaboration with a group like Kronos or Icebreaker would be an interesting place to start. In addition, since it is impossible to separate the artist from his work, especially from an artist as deliberate as Robert, his thoughts on music and life are always of the utmost interest. It would be wonderful if Robert could publish more, perhaps even in book length, as Eno did last year. In the final analysis however, Robert owes his fans nothing. It is strictly his choice on whether to play, to record, to tour, to write or do nothing. Fortunately, for his fans, he chooses to remain active and in the public eye. One can only thank Robert (and his many collaborators, both current and past) for 27 years of stimulating listening. Sincerely, Gary Mayne ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 18:22:34 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher John Cole Subject: Reply to Robert Fripp's letter.. Hello, I guess I can't resist and have to jump on the wagon as well. I.I believe that the nature of the relationship between audience and performer is one of joint acknowledgement. The artist puts forth a concept of reality and I as an audience member also agree to this as being an aspect of reality. Though they may not match perfectly, there is a match of some sort. I also believe that there is not a need for a perfect communion, both members of the relationship will always differ in age, time, abilities and the moment. II.The rights of the audience is a little difficult to ascertain for me. In my mind the perfect audience would be dead quiet because of the respect not for the performer so much as for the fellow listeners. A mutual love of the music should engender a desire to help enhance and perfect the moment of listening for the fellow audience. I feel the audience has the right to understand and be made aware of the uniqueness of the moment of which they are a part. III.I feel the responsibilites and obligations of the audience are pretty straightforward. First the audience needs to respect their fellow members and try to put ego aside. Second I think that the audience has an obligation to attempt to support the artist in their endeavours and lastly, and I feel most importantly, the audience has an obligation to remember that the artist is human as well. Just because I own many of your albums does not give me the right to push my hopes and dreams upon you the artist. If the meeting comes about because of a desire on both parts to discuss music then I feel that is fine, but if the audience wishes only to snatch on to a few minutes of fame then I disagree. Second lastly, I expect the artist to understand the limitations of the audience, and to accept them as best as possible. IV.What do I expect of an artist? I expect the artist to continue creation by doing what it is that they must do. V.What do I expect of Robert Fripp? To be honest I do not expect anything. Vicarious music lacks something for me. On a slightly different note, I DO NOT expect from Roberty Fripp but I would like to THANK him wholeheartedly. In particular I want to thank Robert for the opening and sharing of the relationship he has with music with me. Before listening to you music was not a true presence in my life and I did not consider the effects of music on my life. The letters you have posted here, the liner notes in your works and the words from a tape you sold at a David Sylvian art show in Japan(Redemption) have opened up whole new possibilities for viewing music, myself and my life. People complain that you are not open and that you are anti-social but I feel this is ignorant. How many artists speak as openly about their craft and their personal life as you do? I haven't seen many artists lately share the euology of their mother, shared their history or discuss the power that music plays in their life. Your openness concerning music and the power of music has opened many aspects of my life and I thank you for that. As for lighting on stage, I come to HEAR Robert Fripp, NOT to see you(sorry kiddies but the eyes seem to detract from my ability to join with music). Lastly, I wanted to let you know that some of your advice has helped me in my learning to create as well as others. The other day a friend of mine and I were talking about writing and she was sicussing how disapointed she is with her works because she feels her work is worthless. At this point the thought kicked in and I simply reminded her that any attempt to create and bring forth was better than none at all(a bad not is better than no note at all). I just thought you might like to know that you have an effect on people in many ways. My onen big complaint though is that you never come to Ohio with your soundscapes tours. I thoroughly enjoy your recent work above all else and I regret not being able to attend a live performance. Take care. Chris ------------------------------ End of Elephant-Talk Digest #340 ********************************