King Crimson News

[Mister Triscuits]

And he didn't say he hated the projekct or the players, just that he heard the music being played and did not hear King Crimson (which actually keeps nicely in line with his notion of King Crimson as being some sort of "other" that comes through the music when the stars align, so to speak).

Except that the way Fripp is conveniently the only individual who is qualified to determine when that "other" is present renders it a moot point. I wonder if Adrian or Tony or Pat "heard King Crimson" that night. Or if they feel that it is even necessary for "King Crimson" to be present in order for their musical offering to be successful and enriching to the performers and to 99.9% of the audience (excluding a certain guitarist who gets grumpy when someone moves his cheese).

[battema]

Except that the way Fripp is conveniently the only individual who is qualified to determine when that "other" is present renders it a moot point. I wonder if Adrian or Tony or Pat "heard King Crimson" that night. Or if they feel that it is even necessary for "King Crimson" to be present in order for their musical offering to be successful and enriching to the performers and to 99.9% of the audience (excluding a certain guitarist who gets grumpy when someone moves his cheese).

I wouldn't at all be surprised if Belew or Levin or Mastellotto felt differently, and may have even expressed as much to Fripp.

And that's not what I was talking about. Fripp's opinion of what constitutes KC vs. Belew or Levin or Sinfeld is a totally different matter than Fripp's opinion of KC versus some audience member who paid a ticket to see music they had no creative input into whatsoever.

[aith01]

And that's not what I was talking about. Fripp's opinion of what constitutes KC vs. Belew or Levin or Sinfeld is a totally different matter than Fripp's opinion of KB versus some audience member who paid a ticket to see music they had no creative input into whatsoever.

[Sturgeon's Lawyer]

The key thing is this.

Robert Fripp went to that show with expectations - the same expectations he tells us not to bring to Krim shows. In particular he expected/hoped for/wanted the Spirit of King Crimson (which I believe does have some objective existence) to emerge from this beast of a band that consists 50% of current or ex Crimson members. However good the performance was, it was not King Crimson; and so Fripp left the show disappointed.

Which is his right.

[Phlakaton]

The way I see it Barry... Fripp is KC - no Fripp - no KC - kinda like Soft Machine - I dont think that name is viable now - keeping 'Legacy' in the band name - fine.

[NogbadTheBad]

The way I see it Barry... Fripp is KC - no Fripp - no KC - kinda like Soft Machine - I dont think that name is viable now - keeping 'Legacy' in the band name - fine.

I was surprised when they dropped the Legacy moniker. I saw them at RIO and they were great but I didn't feel they were Soft Machine.

[calyx]

I was surprised when they dropped the Legacy moniker. I saw them at RIO and they were great but I didn't feel they were Soft Machine.

To be absolutely fair, they had Mark Fletcher replacing John Marshall on drums at RIO. Although I thought Fletch brought a fresh energy to the performance, it certainly wasn't the best context to judge whether the 'spirit' of Soft Machine was there. I don't think the current band claim to be something they're not - they're doing their best to encompass as much of Soft Machine's legacy as they can - like playing "Out-Bloody-Rageous" from Third, which none of them played on - which is more than can be said of the version of Soft Machine they were in ca. 1974-77, which played NOTHING from earlier eras. I think an argument can be made that their latest album, the first without "Legacy" in the band name, was a worthy effort to reclaim as much as they musically could from the "classic era", while at the same time being who they are NOW (they've all moved on from the 'fusion' heyday), and with one of them - Theo Travis - who wasn't with them back then, but is the main writer along with John Etheridge. I think that, as long as you don't expect to hear anything of the earlier Ayers/Wyatt era in their music, it's a satisfactory compromise - and what a miracle that the Babbington/Marshall rhythm section is still around at all at 77-78 !

[NogbadTheBad]

To be absolutely fair, they had Mark Fletcher replacing John Marshall on drums at RIO. Although I thought Fletch brought a fresh energy to the performance, it certainly wasn't the best context to judge whether the 'spirit' of Soft Machine was there. I don't think the current band claim to be something they're not - they're doing their best to encompass as much of Soft Machine's legacy as they can - like playing "Out-Bloody-Rageous" from Third, which none of them played on - which is more than can be said of the version of Soft Machine they were in ca. 1974-77, which played NOTHING from earlier eras. I think an argument can be made that their latest album, the first without "Legacy" in the band name, was a worthy effort to reclaim as much as they musically could from the "classic era", while at the same time being who they are NOW (they've all moved on from the 'fusion' heyday), and with one of them - Theo Travis - who wasn't with them back then, but is the main writer along with John Etheridge. I think that, as long as you don't expect to hear anything of the earlier Ayers/Wyatt era in their music, it's a satisfactory compromise - and what a miracle that the Babbington/Marshall is still around at all at 77-78 !

Oh its certainly good & I'd happily go see them again.

[aith01]

Even though Fripp is a founder and the leader of King Crimson, honestly I don’t consider his opinion on the matter to be more significant or legitimate than mine.

This just seems like a really distorted viewpoint.

C'mon, man...

[progholio]

it was not King Crimson; and so Fripp left the show disappointed.

Actually he used the term angry, and repeated it a second time.

My main take-away from the RS article (which was actually really good) was that the hatchet between RF and Adrian has not been completely buried.

I love this quote -
“Adrian Belew commented that, ‘When Robert wants to change the music, either the musicians change the music they’re playing or Robert changes the musicians.’ I’m not sure that I would particularly put it like that,” Fripp said. “But it’s close enough to be indicative.”

I might be a little out of the KC loop here but is the current band doing anything new?

[lazland]

Actually he used the term angry, and repeated it a second time.

My main take-away from the RS article (which was actually really good) was that the hatchet between RF and Adrian has not been completely buried.

I love this quote -
“Adrian Belew commented that, ‘When Robert wants to change the music, either the musicians change the music they’re playing or Robert changes the musicians.’ I’m not sure that I would particularly put it like that,” Fripp said. “But it’s close enough to be indicative.”

I might be a little out of the KC loop here but is the current band doing anything new?

Yes. There are original pieces of music being performed as well as different arrangements of older favourites.

[The Crimson King]

This just seems like a really distorted viewpoint.

C'mon, man...

Why? Fripp’s not a god, just a man. So am I. I felt the spirt of Crim in this project. That spirit is in Adrian as much as it’s in Fripp.

Because Fripp disagrees, I should suddenly change my mind about the Crimson ProjeKct? Well, I won’t. I’m a big Fripp fan but not a sycophant.

[SunshipVoyager1976]

Why? Fripp’s not a god, just a man. So am I. I felt the spirt of Crim in this project. That spirit is in Adrian as much as it’s in Fripp.

Because Fripp disagrees, I should suddenly change my mind about the Crimson ProjeKct? Well, I won’t. I’m a big Fripp fan but not a sycophant.

What Fripp sees as the "spirit of Crimson" is likely not what you are referring to in the same way. Not to speak for anyone else, but I really don't think aith01 was questioning your right to feel anyway you want about The Crimson ProjeKct, simply pointing out that as the creator of most of the original music, Fripp is seeing it differently and (at least in terms of how he views the "Crim Spirit") holding more weight than someone who did not co-write and perform those pieces countless times.

This is also subjective, as is my reaction. We are all allowed to have these different reactions and feelings about this stuff without anyone being "right" or "wrong". It isn't an argument about, say, the rules of poker.

[aith01]

Why? Fripp’s not a god, just a man. So am I.

Because Fripp actually had a hand in creating that music over the last 50 years. You didn't.

Because Fripp disagrees, I should suddenly change my mind about the Crimson ProjeKct? Well, I won’t. I’m a big Fripp fan but not a sycophant.

Nope, but to say that his opinion carries no more weight than your own on the matter of "What is King Crimson?" is just delusional.

[Mascodagama]

Why? Fripp’s not a god, just a man. So am I. I felt the spirt of Crim in this project. That spirit is in Adrian as much as it’s in Fripp.

Personally I find Fripp's pronouncements about King Crimson as a mysterious entity that somehow has an existence apart from the various bands that have had the name to be more than a bit overdone.

That said, as the sole constant member, most significant composer, and proprietor of the name I'm apt to say that his opinion on what is or isn't in the spirit of the enterprise carries a bit more weight than yours or mine.

[Phlakaton]

Its simple - put yourself in Fripp's shoes - someone on a webpage forum is saying your band - the one you pretty much made and named and lived your whole life - knows you better than you and the band --- hehe - taking the mickey eh? Piss off. Who are we to think a single thing from his view? Really? Take your little ball and go home - its his band - his opinion and his right to say and do as he pleases with HIS band. for the record from me at least - its HIS BAND - and nobody is taking that name if he's gone. But hey - I throw my hands up and step back...

[jkelman]

After some inner debate, I've decided I'm going to weigh in here. While I was unable (but invited) to attend the April 6 KC media event in London, I received the documents provided to attendees (and rough audio of the event, which I've not had a chance to hear yet).

I need to read the RS article too, but what I will say is this: Fripp's document (one of three documents provided) lays things out very clearly. Amongst them, some things I'd heard but are now confirmed to be true. Some passages of specific note (and there's a lot of terrific info in there):

A. How can you tell when a group is a group? It shares the money. This honours a key principle of ethical action: equity. Equity = fairness and distributive justice, one of the Four Pillars of the Ethical Business: honesty, responsibility, equity and goodwill."

Believe me (if you don't already know this) when I tell you this is NOT the way every band works.

B. What is different about this KC? Music:
The first KC that has embraced the repertoire as one, whole body of work.

Musicians:
1. There are a lot more of them.
2. More English than American.
3. An exceptional array of musicality and experience.
4. The group serves the music. The shadow form of this principle: the music exists to serve the personal interests of a particular player, whether personally, professionally or musically. Alternatively expressed: there are no prima donnas in this band. Three characteristics of a well-rounded player are: To take the initiative, support the initiatives of others, and Do Nothing; e.g. to solo, accompany, and be tacit. Not all of the former members of KC have been able to discharge these three functions and, more importantly, weren’t interested in doing so.
5. They share the money. This is not first time, but this time no-one believes they should get more than the others.
6. Robert’s Role: the first incarnation where Robert’s role is accepted.

Italics are mine. These all seem beyond fair to me. Fripp may be considered by most to be its "leader," but leader has many possible connotations. Yes, I suspect that he has "veto power," as he is the only member of this (and every other) incarnation who has had a hand in virtually everything the band has written post-ITCotCK, and, therefore, has a unique perspective on what is Crimson and what is not. Nevertheless, from speaking with a number of members of the current group, it's clear that creatively, artistically and many other ways, he not only allows the input of his band mates, he encourages it. Fripp isn't a drummer, even if he envisioned the current three-percussionist lineup, and so he has left the drum arrangements to Gavin Harrison (for the most part), who encourages input from his fellow mate in the percussion section. Egalitarianism in a band is a great thing, especially when you see everyone adopt it as an underlying concept.

And, finally:

C. Although King Crimson is not the Robert Fripp Band I have to accept that KC doesn’t come into the world without Robert

See above. The document goes into this, throughout, from both Robert's perspective and others who are either in the current lineup or have been members of past incarnations.

Oh, and WRT Fripp being "angry" at the Crimson ProjeKct: why should he not be able to judge projects intended to shine a light on the band and music to which he has been fundamental, which has occupied so much of his time and energy for half a century in his professional life as a musician?

Not to mention, from the RS article, on this subject, a description that further illuminates the subject:

... He went to see the group at London’s Shepherd’s Bush Empire in March of 2014, feeling “very excited,” and as he put it, “prepared to jump up and down and shout out loud, demanding for ‘Schizoid Man.” But his mood soon took a turn.
“What I saw with the excellent Stick Men, the excellent Adrian Belew Power Trio, and of all the King Crimson music they played, they had the notes and none of the music...

This may sounds like splitting hairs, but ask most musicians and they'll likely agree that this is a risk playing any music. Put a chart in front of any musician who can read well, and they'll be able to play it. But does it truly represent the music, which is far more than just a collection of notes? Sadly, not necessarily. And no matter how much others may have enjoyed the show, Fripp did not...and for a very clear and, at least IMO, very clear reason...that still respected the excellence of the participants. So why the outrage? I think both his reason, and the way he still paid due to all the extraordinarily fine musicians involved, was, well, very reasonable.

So, to summarize: I have rarely understood some folks' knee-jerk negativity towards almost every action Fripp takes or words he utters. This is a guy who spent a large sum of money to get his work back under his (and anyone else who collaborated in its creation) ownership. This means restoring complete control to the musicians - though not without the collaboration of many people - beyond the various musicians, this includes David Singleton and Panegyric's Declan Colgan, amongst others. I know there are other musicians who treat their band mates similarly, of course; but few have ever made it as crystal clear as Fripp has...here and, frankly, in the past in both actions and words.

He's tried to avoid the typical mantle of leadership and, instead, assumes a role that, at least as I take it, is more about (a) an egalitarian approach to music making alongside those with whom he is playing at any given time, and yet (b) with the acceptance that, as the only common thread throughout the band's half century existence, he is the one who best understands what is KC and, just as importantly, what is not KC.

I think this is more than beyond reasonable; I think it's relatively rare.

So, for me, I not only respect his views on the subject of Crim; I applaud them. But reading his literature and, I'm sure, after I've listened to the events of the day, I'm starting to wonder if writing some words, perhaps in my review of the Heaven and Earth box, about how Fripp has been unfairly maligned over the years, often WRT things for which he has not only an absolute right to be, but about which he is far from alone, might be in order. For example, his longstanding feelings about people recording or photographing his shows and resorting, at times, to what some might consider heavy-handed tactics I see as nothing more than the intense frustration at being nothing but absolutely clear on the subject (the current band has large placards on the subject onstage before the show and during intermission, and the voiceover just before shows begin try to encourage people to avoid doing so in what I think is amongst the nicest, most benign ways possible (don't experience the show through your cellphone, experience it with your eyes and your ears just makes sense to me).

I've recounted before how, when I last saw the band in Toronto (2017), despite the placards and pre-show voiceover, as soon as the first set began, a woman about five seats away from me picked up her phone and began doing exactly what she'd been asked not to do. Fripp frustrated? Hell, I was frustrated!

Anyway, just thoughts from an absentee invitee. Oh, and I was also happy to see RS give proper due to how Fripp views (and clearly appreciates) Sid Smith. As much as I think I know a lot about Crimson (and I do know a fair bit), I also know I'll never know what Sid knows, and so always defer to his far more informed position. And I appreciate the support he's given to my writing on matters Crimson and Crimson-related over the years by giving them prominent notice on DGM Live. I invariably thank him, but truly appreciate his support. But it was great (though no surprise) to see Sid get a major shout-out.

[Buddhabreath]

Regarding Adrian Belew, saw the power trio last night. Adrian played wonderfully with good energy and affability. He opened and closed with a KC song "Matte Kudasai" and the encore "Thela Hun Ginjeet" which he said was near and dear to his heart. He also chatted about how important KC was to him and started saying the name "Rober..." and cut himself off quickly not wanting to got there. Seems he's still quite bummed about not being part of the current incarnation.

“What I saw with the excellent Stick Men, the excellent Adrian Belew Power Trio, and of all the King Crimson music they played, they had the notes and none of the music...

Not so. Mr. Belew had the music especially on "Matte Kudasai" and "Three of a Perfect Pair" IMO.

[Zappathustra]

My 14 years old daughter wasn't even born when they last recorded a studio album, but there are news people, so many news, but nothing new (meanwhile that crazy monster of a Christian Vander is releasing a news new album in 2 months time).

[notallwhowander]

6. Robert’s Role: the first incarnation where Robert’s role is accepted.

This is enigmatic. What is Robert's role? I assume this goes beyond playing guitar.

[jkelman]

Not so. Mr. Belew had the music especially on "Matte Kudasai" and "Three of a Perfect Pair" IMO.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion...but surely Robert is equally entitled, no? And, at least from my perspective (and with no disrespect intended), I tend to think that the guy who has been involved in writing and playing this music for much of his lengthy career, would have greater insight than you - or I, to be absolutely clear and fair - as to whether or not a band is "getting" to the heart of the music.

I know, in my career as a far lesser musician to the ones we're talking about, that the objective is always to somehow breathe life into the written chart; to make the music leap off the page, so to speak. Sometimes we succeed ... other times (in my case, more often than not) we don't. Musicians of Crimson and Crimson ProjeKct's caliber, I'd wager, succeed far more often than I ever did. But there's another truth, and one which I've experienced, even at my level. I would play a set and people might come up and say "that's the best I've ever heard you play." Meanwhile, as I would nod my head and thank them for the compliment, I was actually thinking "Really? I well and truly sucked during that set!"

So perspectives vary. To you, a great set marked by particularly strong performances of certain tunes; to Fripp, not 'getting it' at all. And both, fair enough.

But I do have to repeat: Fripp was in no way disrespectful to players of whom he made clear were (and still are) excellent musicians. And who knows? Maybe if he'd seen another show on another night his reaction would have been different. In other words, I don't know that he was making any broad assessments (other than that all the players were excellent) - just responding to that night.

[jkelman]

This is enigmatic. What is Robert's role? I assume this goes beyond playing guitar.

I would say Robert's role is, amongst other things, and as the only person who has been involved in the band for its entire half century existence, the primary determiner of what makes something Crimson and what does not. There's more, but I think, in a nutshell, that's really what it comes down to.

But that's just my interpretation....

[jkelman]

My 14 years old daughter wasn't even born when they last recorded a studio album, but there are news people, so many news, but nothing new (meanwhile that crazy monster of a Christian Vander is releasing a news new album in 2 months time).

I think the idea that a studio album determines anything is vastly overrated. It's been decades since Keith Jarrett stepped into a studio (barring a couple of classical projects, but I'm talking about his primary work), and that sure hasn't rendered his music any less relevant.

I prefer to think, given Fripp has always considered studio recordings to be "love letters" and live shows "hot dates," that he's skipping the love letters with what amounts to an LP's worth of newly composed music (given their interpretation of most older music is also new, but not newly composed) and going straight to the hot date, as you can find the new material peppered throughout the band's numerous live documents released since 2014.

Don't get me wrong. Studio recordings have great value too, especially if you're taking advantage of what it can bring to a recording. But not to all musicians, and especially now (when the cost of making a "proper" album - great room, great board, great engineer, etc, - is so prohibitive). Some prefer, and for more than one reason, to document their work on live recordings.

Why is that somehow less than a studio recording?

[calyx]

Not so. Mr. Belew had the music especially on "Matte Kudasai" and "Three of a Perfect Pair" IMO.

Wrong example - the music for "Matte Kudasai" was predominantly Fripp's - and was originally written as an instrumental for the League of Gentlemen.

[calyx]

Why is that somehow less than a studio recording?

I think what people mean when they talk of a "studio album" is not necessarily that it was all recorded in a studio - "Starless and Bible Black" was 2/3rds live and is still viewed as one of KC's "studio albums" - but that it contains all previously unheard material. KC's live albums would be an equivalent to that if one release had all the new material in one place. That would be more of a "statement" of where KC are at now than bits of new material on 3-4 different live albums. There is still validity, I think, in presenting a 40-60 minutes of new music on a separate release.

I understand Fripp's reservations about going back into the studio with such a large line-up - bad memories of the double-trio there - but he has said that with the quality and practicality of making live recordings these days, a new 'studio album' culled from 'de-audienced' live recordings would be feasible... if they have enough new material written, rehearsed and performed, which doesn't yet seem to be the case.