I was told that you wanted to talk most about the ProjeKCts and your solo work...
What would YOU like to ask me.
Well, in my whole bunch of questions those about the ProjeKCts come first so I guess I'll start there.
Okay.
It seems that you regard the ProjeKCts as a practising and revigoration phase for King Crimson
Yes. I think it is also fair to say that at the moment King Crimson is alive inside the projects. Part of the idea was that the projects could become as much as they might become. And at the moment they are becoming quite substantial. ProjeKCt III makes its debut on March the 21st in Austin. King Crimson is now alive, alive and well in four different groups. I'm not sure ProjeKCt I is likely to play again. Bill is playing with Earthworks and Tony is out playing with Seal. But ProjeKCt II and ProjeKCt III are currently up and going and ProjeKCt IV is when Tony is available to join.
Erik: So how many are in ProjeKCt III? Five?
No, three. Trey Gunn, Pat Mastelotto and myself.
Erik: So the maximum seems to be four.
So far yes. Two thirds, four out of six.
Okay, when I listen to the ProjeKCts there seems a distinction with for instance THRaKaTTaK although that was also improvised as it seems also the ProjeKCts are?
Yes that is true.
So I wondered where the next King Crimson album will take you, if the projects are a starting point for the next album.
I made two different suggestions to Bill (Bruford) about Crimsons next step. Bill hasn't felt enthusiastic about either.
Erik: Could you be a little more specific?
Well, I made SPECIFIC suggestions to Bill and neither of them appealed to him.
[laughter]
Erik: Does this have anything to do with...maybe frictions is too large a word..
No, it had to do with the fact that musically Bill was not enthusiastic about the specific suggestions made to him.
Erik: Involving for instance his role as a timekeeper?
His role was never that of a timekeeper.
Erik: No, but this was a point of discussion around '84.
There is a difference between being a timekeeper and keeping the pulse or being in step with the pulse in the band. And if you are playing in several meters at once, there has to be a -- not a rigid -- but there definitely has to be a reference to a common pulse in the band. In that is quite different from timekeeping. To me, Bill's musical heart is in Earthworks, in the jazz they are playing, in the acoustic kit. My interests lie in the electronic kit. One of the suggestions to Bill was that he should play a completely electronic kit against Pat's and Ade's (Adrian Belew, JH) so we would have three electronic drums. And Bill was not interested, because as he told me, he has been working with electronics since 1981 and for now he would like to concentrate on the acoustic sets.
Erik: Talking of pulse, what struck me in the ProjeKCts was that they are pulse music, periodical, whereas THRaKaTTaK was nonpulse, aperiodical.
Yes, I agree.
Erik: Was that something conscious? There is a pretty deep contrast technically spoken, between the two.
In terms of the improvisations drawn from all the Thraks, the ones included almost none of them had pulse. If they had had pulse, then we would have included improvisations with pulse. So it was a feature of music we were editing and assembling.
Erik: What was the reason to include pulse now? How do these things go?
The key injunction is to act in accordance with time, place and person, so the improvisations that came out of Thrak were ones without a determined pulse, were more of a flow of time, rather then a periodic flow of time. Were we to assemble improvisations from a ProjeKCt, we would find that most of them have time, although not all of them. ProjeKCt II has a category which it refers to as Vector Shift. In April we will release a boxset of the three ProjeKCts. I believe you have been given a sampler of this.
Erik: Yes we have.
So that is determined by the music. We follow the music.
Erik: What interests me is that the difference between them is so great. Or maybe you do not agree. You have aperiodic and you have periodic music and it is a like two different worlds.
YES! King Crimson plays in both of them.
Erik: Well, no ehm yes. THRaKaTTaK is nonperiodical, the ProjeKCts are, but they are not King Crimson.
That's one way of approaching it. For me, King Crimson is currently alive within the projeKCts. It's a fractalization.
Erik: Then we could put the projects under the meta-title King Crimson. Phrased in another way, is it King Crimson or not?
The question is phrased in such a way that I cannot answer it. I have already given you the answer. King Crimson is alive and well within the fractals. The fractals have both their own character and also the character of King Crimson. So if you said "Is this the music in the projects the music of King Crimson?" then I would say as we have discussed this within the projects: some of it is quite recognizably King Crimson. Tony Levin for example once said: "A useful thing about Robert is that he knows which of the music we play, is King Crimson music." And some of it isn't. Some project music is project music, but some music is very distinctive King Crimson. Now if you looked at a map of the coastline from well above, then it would seem a straight line. If you would look up close, then it would seem neverending. Now which is the coastline? I would say both.
Erik: It depends on your perception.
On interpretation. In quantum physics you have light beams that hit a mirror in exactly 45 degrees. Which direction does it go? It goes in both, but that can't happen (actually, it can only "not happen" if you talk of one single electron. In the case of a lightBEAM the electrons are split. JH) It goes in one or the other once the decision is made that it does so. So, it depends on how we marshall our material, how we interpret it and then, this is a key one, the decision we take. If you say ProjeKCt II is projeKCt II, I say "Yes!". If you say ProjeKCt II is King Crimson, I say "Yes!". If you then say "It can't be one or the other", then I say "Yes! It's both". Or for example in binary logic. You have the traditional Western philosophy of the law of the excluded middle: it can't have both true and false. But yes it can: in a different conceptual framework, for instance the triadic logic. You can have yes, no and neutral and the neutral binds the two together. Your choice is whatever you make of it.
Knowing a little of quantum physics, the key is observation. You find which way the light goes when you choose your point of observation.
That's right. The perception of the audience is the interesting part. If the audience doesn't hear what is going on, is it going on or not?
Erik: Yes, well...
Or both? For the audience: no, for the music: yes, for the musicians: maybe.
Erik: That's a deeply interesting point.
YES! Yes it is.
Erik: Does anything exist without people being aware of it.
This was question that which the Bishop of Berkeley in England when presented with it, answered it thus: [kicking the chair] "I do refute it thus!"
Erik: The strict point of view.
Yes. However, in modern conceptual frameworks there is a more sophisticated view. I would say that the act of music exists in several worlds simultaneously. I will give a few examples. We would generally assume that are different qualities of musicians. There is the journeyman musician, the gigster.
Erik: Such as yourself
No.
Erik: Oh, sorry
I also will not say no to that. It is partially true. Then you have the professional musician, the craftsmen, then you have the master musician and then you have the genius. Now, if the gigster listening to Bartok cannot hear what Bartok put there, is Bartok then a jerk? You understand?
Erik: Yes I do.
No! If an apprentice does not hear what a master hears, is then that quality not present in the music? Yes and no. In the world in which the apprentice lives no.
Erik: Inherently yes.
Yes. So, we are then into the decree that perception and interpretation affects the matter. The quicker answer is to say that all these things are true, but they are more or less treated true depending on the world in which they are present. And then you move to: are you present? Are you here in this moment?
Erik: Then you have to define what 'present' is.
Yes.
Erik: Etcetera, it becomes very labyrinthic. Ultimately it is very clear and simple.
Okay, let's start with the present moment.
Isn't it just that everybody projects the potential of a piece of music onto himself, his possibilities?
I can't speak for everybody, so I cannot answer that question. Bennett said: Music can come from a place more real than life. Then they said who? And he said "Yes, James Hendrix".
Erik: Ha ha. What did he hear?
I didn't hear through his ears.
Erik: I mean what song did he hear?
He went to the Isle of Wight festival. He probably heard everything. I'd say that what we hear is the quality of our listening.
I would say also that it is limited in some way by the quality of what is played. Or can you hear more than what is played. In some sense you can.
Okay, let's look at this. If a professional musician in a symphony orchestra is playing Beethoven. But this particular orchestra have played this particular chestnut so many times, they can play it in their sleep. Does the genius remain present in the music or not?
Erik: Inherently yes.
Inherently the potentiality is there, so the members of the audience can access that. But I don't believe the full potential is there.
Erik: The full potential.
Music can be transformative, utterly transformative. The act of music is utterly transformative. Tell me the last time, your life was transformed by listening to music.
Erik: A few hours ago as a matter of fact. By hearing the Perception Of The Thrush.
Really? I'm flattered. I'm very happy for you. That is something of a piece, seething with ambiguity.
Which track was that.
ProjeKCt II.
Erik: Thrush is ambiguous as well. Is it the bird? The horse disease? In general, what about titles, titles for instrumental music, your instrumental music. How do you invent them?
You have to find a way of recognizing and describing the quality inherent in the music. If you fail to do that, then the piece itself is compromised. Let me give you an example: in guitar playing courses. A feature of guitar playing courses is that you learn to play an instrument and have to play it in front of people. In guitar craft we learn the instrument and we learn to perform. There were many opportunities to play in public at meals. There would frequently be two, three, four five students who had put together a piece and arrived to play it during dinner. At some occassions I would rise and say "What is the name of this group?" and they don't have a name, and I would say "Get Out". If they don't know who they are, I don't have time for someone who does not know who he is.
Erik: That is harsh.
When I talk to people about music, they know a song and like it, but they hardly ever know what it is called.
I am talking about the identity of the performer here.
Erik: I called you harsh, since to my feeling music and language are two entirely incompatible languages in the deepest possible sense. Sounds and words are two different things. Maybe there are no words for what you hear.
Linguistic philosophers continue to argue that probably music is not a language, that is in the philosophical debate. Another point of view is to say that music is a very profound language. The spoken form is in fact a very restrained representation of what is possible in the musical language. And it would be rather like the linguistic philosophers listening to music is not language, what does it represent? It is rather like someone who lives in the basement, trying to describe the view of the garden from the roof. All the person in the basement can do is to describe what the lawn is like. The lawn is like my concrete floor, but greener. Well no, it's not really like that, and the only way in which you can get a view of this, is to go up to the garden and through the garden doors. Until then, your opinion is subjective and limited. So if you live in the basement or even on the garden floor and you say "Language is soft and brown with green pokey things on top. This is language.". But if you looked from the top of the house you could see that beyond the edge of the lawn, in fact there is a stream and beyond that there are trees. So you would say that actually language is richer and broader than that. So from a musical point of view one would say that music is perhaps analogous to a language which allows many voices to speak simultaneously and coherently as it were in harmony and you're defining language in terms sequential always a monologue. So once again our perception is governed by the world in which we live.
But is this not just a difference in level of abstraction. If somebody is suspended from a balloon he can see even further, but in less detail. Is there a fundamental difference there then?
Yes, it's a fundamental difference, between the roof and the basement.
Erik: Is it not a difference of degree?
Hmmmm. When I was in Brussels in 1997 on my birthday a person from the record company had the enviable job of entertaining me for the evening. Because I felt for him having to entertain this person from England, I asked him "Where would you like to go"?. And he said he wanted to go to La Grande Place. So we went there and we looked at all of it going "Ahhhh" and "Ohhh". And all the cosmology built into architecture and all the clues. The thing pointing here, you follow over there. Then we stood in front of the town hall, this remarkable construct. You can see that the spire of the town hall is not right in the middle, it is slightly to one side, precisely to one side. And if you miss that particular clue, then have the clues with the figures and the ponds.
Erik: The golden ratio or something?
Yes, well, close actually and something else as well, but yes. He said to me that there is a story about the architect who built that, spent his lifetime on it and when it was built they came to get him and have him take a look. When he saw the spire was off-center he climbed to the top and jumped off. And I said to him that the man who built that would climb to the top and fly away.
Maybe he had this idea that he would never do it better anyway, that his life was finished or because he made a mistake.
Those are the only two options.
I wonder which one it is.
He was not disappointed. He wouldn't have been able to build that if he weren't already on the roof looking down.
Erik: But about titles. Are you saying that any piece can only have one title?
In terms of an identity, an identity reflects an individuality, by definition. And, if there is a quality present, it is recognizable and it can be named. If you can't name it, it means you don't recognize it.
Erik: But a piece might have more qualities to it. You might have doubts whether to choose this or that title.
Then the piece is a mess and doesn't contain an individuality.
Erik: The fourth string quartet by Barto'k for instance has definitely different identities, so if you would like to name it...
Yes, it's the fourth string quartet. Sure. If you look at the fifth and sixth quartets, it is only the work of a man past middle age.
Erik: Approaching death even.
Yes, but when Bartók died, he felt he was still too full. He said I'm still full. He said to fly away you needed to be active. But nevertheless within that there is an individuality, there is a presence.
If you hear two things in music, you can combine them.
Clearly in that case that happened.
I guess you can always do this.
If there is a quality present and it is recognizable and can be named. If you can't recognize it, you can't find a name for it.
With your titles I feel that they hit the spot. But somebody else, with a different background might think they do not at all. If I find a title, that somebody else thought of, fitting for some piece, does that then maybe imply that we think about something in the same way. But are other points of view not equally valid?
Would you care to choose one of those questions.
I wonder whether the identity is not singular. I can think of a name for something, you can as well and we can disagree on this, because we can in fact disagree on anything.
Let me give you an example. A practical example. I noticed that groups, if they fail to recognize their identity, if they don't know who they are, they tend to fail. There are of course groups that do recognize who they are and still fail, but. Remember Annie and the Tourists.
Erik: Who?
Annie and the Tourists. A hugely succesful band. The Eurythmics.
Oh yes, that band.
So, what changed? The name.
Erik: Dave Stewart was in there as well?
Yes.
So what changed was the name. But what does that indicate? The people were the same. It was the name. It was a recognition of who they were. Now you could say that by recognizing who they were, the music changed and I say "Yes". Because if you don't know who you are, what is going on? A mess is the answer. So, on that simple recognition, this is who we are, everything changes, you are in a different world. You moved out from the basement. Within the basement it is dark and you can't see who you are. You only get light in on the garden floor. Down there it is dark and you might find a torch and if you are lucky enough you stumble across a light switch. But you are not going to know who you are till you get out into the garden.
Erik: Let's get more concrete.
More concrete than Annie Lennox and Dave becoming the Eurythmics it can never get.
Erik: Yes, but it is not about you. You are the only person you can speak about. A piece like Requiem sounded improvised to my ears, with equal input of all the members. Still, the title became Requiem.
Why?
Erik: Yes why?
I said: "This is called Requiem".
Erik: No one disagreed.
That's right. There's your specific example.
Erik: Hm. I'm puzzled now.
Alright. Good. But in other situations it is not like that. Michael Giles the first drummer of King Crimson, never agreed to the name King Crimson. But then, if you'd knew Michael, you would know he didn't agree to the album cover either. So maybe Michael didn't agree to the point of definition with many things. I make no comment, but just give another practical example. Let me give another example.
Erik: Okay. The Sheltering Sky.
It's from a Paul Bowles novel. If you read the book, there is a certain fragrance, but not quite that, because there's a dryness and a shimmer which is effective in The Sheltering Sky. The King Crimson Sheltering Sky is not the Paul Bowles Sheltering Sky, but there's still that hovering.
Erik: But it is an association, isn't? I guess you read the book...is it your title.
Yes, it's my title. You can say there is an association, but that is not purely it. Another practical example. In 1981 with Adrian Belew, Bill Bruford and Tony Levin the weight of expectation in forming King Crimson was too much to take on. So there four musicians and yet there was something about this that I recognized. And driving to Bill Bruford's, from the little village where I was staying, the four miles up the country lane and over hill and down on the other side -- Eric Clapton living over there and Bill two hundred yards that way. As I was driving, over here [pointing to the now nonexistent passenger seat], there was a presence, which I recognized as King Crimson. I'm just describing the experience, you can interpret it as you wish. But here is the presence. I wonder if you ever tried this exercise: close your eyes and a friend walks into the room. Can you recognize him with your eyes closed. Well here, just here, here I was driving, my passenger [...] up a bit, it was King Crimson, with a clear sense that this was available to this group if they wished to be King Crimson. Not a reformation, more a sense of reincarnation. This is the individuality which is available to be born within these four bodies. But that is an interpretation. The experience is immediate and direct.
Erik: The band was orginally called Discipline, or was that more of a work title? You really felt that the band was called Discipline. Like with the Eurythmics you changed the name into King Crimson.
These are your words. The group worked in Europe under the name of Discipline. And the formal decision of all the four members to accept that we were King Crimson was taken when Tony Levin jumped into the touring van, a little one, not a big one and we asked him and he said "Sure, I never liked the name Discipline anyway". So, there we have the practicalities as well as the lofty notions of recognizing what we have.
Getting back to the ProjeKCts now. Why would you release all of them together in single box? Strange to first see different projeKCts and now it turns out they will be released together.
First of these is that the three albums are available. Secondly it presents a coherent viewpoint.
That is indeed one point. To my ears, the differences between the ProjeKCts are not large. But you might hear more than I do?
Those are your words. I'd use my words.
Erik: In 1984 you said something like that it was excruciatingly painful to play in King Crimson at the time. Has that changed? If so, have the ProjeKCts have had anything to do with this.
It continues to be excruciatingly exasparating and it can be exceptionally painful. But no, the ProjeKCts are different. Because they are more free wheeling, because they can allow themselves to be whatever they want to be in the moment. But it is a wider thing. For example, if an audience goes to see ProjeKCt II in a club, what are there expectations? Well, not much is the quick answer unless maybe they've got the album. The thing is that with ProjeKCt II they don't expect to hear the King Crimson repertoire. If you come to hear the King Crimson repertoire, then you are in the wrong place, but you are welcome all the same. It is not not what you are going to get. We had a very small number of people that left.
Erik: In the audience.
Yes, a very small number. Along the lines of "This isn't progressive rock". Fair enough. It was not progressive rock, whatever that might be. So with the projects there is a malleability of anticipating the expectation which probably isn't there with Crimson. The present moment is where tradition and innovation meet. Where recreation and renewal take place. This is the key. Now, if King Crimson accepts responsibility for innovating its own tradition, you can't accept responsibility for the audience. And there is an enormous tangible weight of expectation, which comes from an audience attending a King Crimson concert.
Erik: A naive question maybe, but why is that a burden? You can do what you want can you not? So what if they want to hear Schizoid Man. You can just not play it.
The question is not quite naive.
Erik: I knew that.
You can do what you want more generally when you pay for it. What is necessary is possible, what we want is expensive. What is unnecessary is unlikely.
If you want you can kill a person.
As long as you pick up the tab.
Yes.
Erik: Still, John Coltrane, Miles Davis. Who ever knew what they would be doing next? Still, people kept coming.
Well, you'd find that in fact if you would go into more detail that you would find that Miles Davis did a show in New York that in fact not many people did go to. He was surprised.
Erik: When was this?
I would have to back through an enormous flood of memory banks to which particular Miles Davis biography that was. You can find it in the library. Go and find it.
Erik: But approximately. Sixties, seventies, eighties?
I think it was early seventies.
Erik: Around Bitches Brew. Now what was your point?
I think we were following your point.
Erik: Yes. I gave an analogy between Miles and Crimson.
Yes. I think your suggestion is that if you are King Crimson, you can do whatever you want.
Erik: Right.
Since you are playing devil's advocate, I would first say if you want to speak to the devil...
Erik: I'm speaking the Beelzebub himself. The Lord of the Flies.
No, no, no. The man with the aim.
Erik: Alright.
If in terms of King Crimson I present to its members two distinct points of view, neither of which appeal to them, even within the band it is not possible to achieve what I wish for. Even within the band, if I cannot manage to persuade the members of what I see to be the next course of action, how do you expect the group to deal with the expectations of thousands of people. It is not possible.
Erik: But I don't get it. You were talking about art.
No-o.
Erik: No, I'm serious. Art is a freedom of mind or the capacity to relive one's innocence. That is, I believe, how you phrased it. It's free.
If for a moment I thought that you really believed in any of this, we may have one discussion. Since I don't believe this for a moment, we may have another. What is art, I address the question to you.
Erik: I can't just define that here.
But you have been throwing definitions at me since we began? So what is art? I will accept you are an intelligent man and I'm not going to be as rude enough to suggest you would use a word, without any appreciation of its meaning. You have used the word...
Erik: I could come with a definition of the word.
Come on then
Erik: One by the Dutch writer Gerard Reve.
But, but what would YOU say? What is yours, from your experience? What if I ask you in which house you live? You say "But there's a clever man lives down the road". And I say "No, which house do YOU live in?".
Erik: No, it wouldn't make any sense. If I could come up with definition, then you would go and shoot at it.
No, no, no, no. Come on, come on.
Erik: You'll say it is invalid.
No, no, what is art?
Erik: Art is the capacity, the human capacity to communicate something that is unique and highly individual in order to enrich ones lives, starting with the life of the artist. This is a very Western point of view, by the way.
How would you differentiate between art and craft.
Erik: Craft is a means towards art. I can play guitar. It's crafty, but it's only art at its best moments.
And what would characterize those best moments? What is that? And this is where things get interesting, because we can recognize those moments. So what is it?
One might not be able to describe it.
Once the experience is there, you can access it, and if you can access it...
I wonder.
Well this is a practical experience.
On the other hand, there are theorems that are true, but you cannot prove.
I would say you can verify it, but only if you accept the injunctions. For example in science, a valid scientific proof would be that something can be validated by others.
Erik: It is intersubjective.
But in order for that to happen there are criteria that must be applied in the phenomenal world. In the spiritual sciences it is exactly the same. There are, if you like, experiments that can be verified, providing you accept the injunctions which lead you to that point. But unless you expect the injunctions that lead you to establish a proof, a particular proof, we have no capactities for making a judgment. If we stand outside a laborotory, our opinion is relatively worthless.
Erik: It's an ongoing search for something. Like a Sysiphus stone maybe. The only thing I could say is that I would recognize art when its presented to me.
Yes. And I accept this, but there is a particular characteristic. What is it you recognize? It isn't theoretical, because Ah Yes!
Erik: Ya. But it differs from man to man.
But, but we are not talking about other people. We are talking about you.
Erik: It is hard. We should have an extra session to go into this. I would like to talk about it, but you make me far more important than I am.
But you are the writer. You have control of this. I don't.
Erik: You are asking all the questions now, so you are pretty much in control.
No. How could I be in control?
Erik: But you are.
In no way at all. You have all the lists.
Erik: True.
You have the recording machine and you will be transcribing and printing. I have no control of this.
Erik: You are in control in the sense that you give direction to what is happening now. You are asking questions and I..
But you are asking questions and they were leading in an interesting way.
Erik: But it is a sort of game this, we all have a role in this a theater.
But the questions you asking me are set up such that I respond to them in a gameful way. I recognize that.
Erik: That's fine. But I won't want to bother my readers with what I think of art. I shall maybe, when I write this down, end with saying "Fripp: what do you think of art?". I have so many questions you see.
Well here's another one. Would you accept that 'art' is a verb?
Erik: I suppose so.
Well, if we are talking about pulse, what is time? For this lofty philosphical notion we can read all the books, we still have no idea whatsoever about what is an everyday experience. So if we convert time, time is not a name, it is not a thing, it is an experience, and time becomes a verb. And then we discuss timing. Then certainly for a musician timing becomes something that is immediately accessible as a concept, because it's a necessity in ones everyday performance. This is timing. So what is timing? But then it becomes practical and we have something tangible which we can approach. But now to something else.
I have quite a number of factual questions.
Did you get the Crimson biography?
I did. I looked into it.
Most of the facts are in there.
Yes. But for instance about your solo work there's nothing there.
Alright.
For instance, Pie Jesu was supposedly a precursor to a soundscapes box.
Yes.
Later on it appeared on a single CD. What happened?
Well instead of composing a box, we simply released the music we found relevant on a single CD.
Was there more music available besides...
There are dozens of CDs of music available, but we proceeded to this.
But I wondered, how is the role of David Singleton here. Is he say a co-composer or more an editor or whatever?
Are those mutually exclusive roles?
No, you tell me.
So the question is?
What is the role of David Singleton.
David has several roles. One of the, the critical one, is that David has good taste. He recognizes what is legitimate, authentic and if we don't go off to far on this...what is true.
That's okay.
Or even real, but let's not follow that. Too far. Secondly he is a superb digital editor. Superb.
That is a technical ability.
And thirdly, he actually is...he has musical skills. For writing music. And if you put them all together depending on the particular project, his editing will in some cases lead the way. In other cases he will say "This is a music I feel we should concentrate on". And in some... the editing as in THRaKaTTaK for example, the editing plays such a key role that it would be as true to say that he was a part composer. For instance in Bitches Brew they gave Teo Macero seven hours or so.
Before the soundscapes there were Frippertronics.
Up until 1983. The last Frippertronics performance was given on Easter Sunday in Toronto... Easter Monday in Toronto 1983.
Are the soundscapes an alternative to Frippertronics? To my ears Frippertronics are more neurotic, while soundscapes are more fluent. That is how I feel about them. Are they related?
Yes they are descendants. Soundscapes are descendants of Frippertronics. The technology has changed, matured and hopefully so has the guitarplaying.
Erik: Could you describe the evolution from Frippertronics to soundscapes.
Yes, there's a lot more going on within Soundscapes. Two words: more information.
Erik: Frippertronics, like Let The Power Fall, are all very tonal. Diatonically tonal even. Loopy Terry Riley-like, modal whatever you want to call it. Soundscapes seem more harmonically complex. Is that correct?
I think yes. The technology enables that. But to Revoxes it doesn't. You could say my timing is impeccable. The technology, the Revox technology on the first pass is in mono. Soundscape on the first pass are already quadrophonic in their live performances in England. It's six speakers quadrophonic at first pass. So, you can set up an orchestra down this end of the railway station playing one particular area, and simultaneously at the other end something completely different going on. And in the middle they meet, or not, depending. With Frippertronics that wasn't even an option. And I would hope that the capacity of the guitars has broadened so that they can hold on to more things at once.
Erik: Does this also involve also theoretical knowledge of things like harmony?
If you mean to say has my experience and knowledge as a player grown in the last fourteen years, then I would say I hope so.
Erik: I mean have you read stuff?
I read lots of stuff.
Erik: Stuff about harmony, clustering?
If you ask, conceptually, has my -- grasp isn't the right word -- do I have a better feel or sense of clusters and complexity than fourteen years ago, then I say yes. But part of it is attention span. And one of the keys, whether you live in the basement or on the garden floor, has to do with attention span. The longer the attention span, the higher the levels of the house we can access. But it is for real, you cannot invent an attention span. According to USA today, the average length of an attention span of a man in America is 23 minutes.
I was always told that you should never teach more than 45 minutes. This means I should have it.
23 minutes is a good basic score. 45 minutes is where human life begins. [laughter] But above that, most mature adults can hold their attention on something for 45 minutes, whether they like it or not. But above that requires training.
Erik: But is that a parameter in your musical activity?
Yes.
Erik: The attention span of the audience.
Oh. I can't accept responsibility for the audience, but I can for myself. In terms of myself, is that part of my practice, the quick answer is yes.
Erik: Alright, but you have had much more training in this. How do you cope with this tension between you and the audience in this respect?
You think on your feet. If you are playing repertoire material, you're stuck. There's not huge amounts you can do.
Erik: Stuck?
Yes, you're stuck with a repetoire. For example: you are playing the fifth string quartet.
Erik: Barto'k again.
Yeah. What are you going to do? Well you're going to continue playing. No if you're playing in a rock group in a bar and you're mainly improvising, then you can see that people are getting really restless.
Erik: So you play guitar with your teeth.
Yeah, seriously. That is one approach. The thing is, Hendrix came up within a performance tradition, where he had to do that to keep the audience's attention. He learned to tweak the audience's attention and expectation in order to keep eating.
But in the end, people get used to it.
Yeah, well I think the next approach is that when their eyes are on you: be good, be very good.
But if you do this for years with your teeth, say.
Well in Hendrix case it killed him didn't it?
Yeah.
Erik: Didn't drugs do that?
I wonder.
Erik: I think he was smart enough to start a new adventure, musically.
Hendrix was one of the most luminous people I ever met. He was radiant. And it's a tragedy, the drugs came in and the attention he attracted from the industry. He could have handled the audience, but not the industry. A good friend, you'd know his name, a guitarist, saw Hendrix playing not long before his death. And he said "It wasn't there" and he knew, Hendrix knew it wasn't there. And he went backstage afterwards Hendrix was unhappy, because he knew.
Erik: He was the first to know.
You have a lot more questions.
A lot more.
Erik: We should keep it short.
Look we are coming up to the hour and I have phonecalls to make.
I talked to Peter Hammill about the soundscapes on his Everyone You Hold album. He says uses different techniques.
Sure.
But how do you feel about this?
First of all: I don't comment on the work of other musicians. Secondly anything Peter does is pretty well fine with me.
[laughter]
Erik: Fred Frith, John McLaughlin, Frank Zappa, Gavin Bryars...
I don't comment on other the work of other artists...
Erik: No, no, that is not what I mean.
Although most of the names are on CDs which you will find on my shelves.
Erik: These people have expanded their creative impulses so to speak into the realm of classical music. Frith wrote a string quartet, McLaughlin wrote for guitar and orchestra, Zappa did a lot. Do you any plans for this?
No.
Erik: Do you consider your soundscapes your symphonies, your Frippertronics your string quartets? I read in your diary that Joe the Prolific and Gustav Anguished are daily on your turntable.
And Arnold the Baldypant.
Erik: Arnold? Haha, I missed that one. But you listen to classical music a lot.
Yes. But at home, I would never anticipate a rock group playing in my house. It is conceivable that a string quartet would play in my house. There is a proportion and a scale about the music which fits in my home. Primarily I would rather see music performed live, because the act of music is the music. The quick answer is no, although a piece was arranged recently by Andrew Kealing a young English composer. Well young, ehm he is mature. He has arranged it for Mr McPhalls.
Erik: For?
Mr. McPhalls. A new artist on Discipline. There seems to be on Discipline suddenly from nowhere as of itself a classical musical division. It is not quite that. It is players with a conservatory background who are as broadly based with that background as perhaps Crimson members are with their background. It is as if...there may be barriers, but we choose not to see them. There's a difference in training perhaps and approach. But nevertheless at a certain point it is all music. Not before that point, but at a certain point, yes.
Erik: When you give me such a definite no, you are never going to know what you will feel like in the future?
But you asking the question today, so you get the answer of today.
Erik: Yes, but it sort of amazes me. I see in you a secret string quartet composer.
It is true that Peace - A Theme began as a draft for a string quartet.
Erik: So you started with notes.
Oh, I still do. I still have a manuscriptbook with notes. I prefer not to write parts for musicians, because then it goes in the eyes and the brain. Very few musicians I work with can make score into music immediately. Mingus worked the same way.
Erik: Just a global structure.
He might play the part or present it, but it wouldn't go in through the eyes. With complex music of course you get some difficulties. But as a general working maxim it holds.
Talking about the people you play with. Usually you hear that they are praised strongly for technical abilities. Is that a prerequisite? Or is creativity more important?
Creativity can visit any floor of the house. But the point is: it comes to us. What we are addressing now is, how we aspire to creativity, what do we do? And the greater facility we have, the more we can place ourselves, if you like, in service to the muse. Are you asking me for the criteria for the musicians I play with?
In a sense. But do you also feel whether technical ability is a prerequisite to be effective as a band?
That is the wrong question. The answer is on a necessity, on a sufficiency. Your technique has to be sufficient to play what is necessary. Not very much more, and certainly not less. It is clear that the members of King Crimson, that they have to be able to play the music of King Crimson. More than that is not strictly necessary, although a margin is always useful. The interesting thing is that musicians who are very very technically fluent in their hands, tend to always be busy.
Erik: For them music making is craft or something.
No it's not even that. It is just motor. I'll give you an example. There is a character who was interested in playing with King Crimson. I won't give the name, I won't give the date.
Erik: The instrument maybe.
No, no, no. I'm telling the story to illustrate a point. The part we were trying to play was very simple, very simple.
Erik: Which piece?
Not even going to mention that. The actual line was "I'm gonna hip this one up a bit, dig?". In other words these two notes are not enough for me, so I'm going to hip them up, dig? And this person did. And you'd say why? These notes were necessary to that piece of music, to be that piece of music. If you're going to say "I'm going to write another piece of music", fine, that is legitimate. But it was illegitimate in that particular context, because a particular repertoire piece was being addressed. You can say that I play largo presto, because my fingers move a lot quicker. And I say fine, but then it is not largo. Yeah it is presto. Fine, alright, but that is another discussion. So you actually do not, I think, don't want musicians whose fluencies are so far beyond what is necessary, that they'll feel uncomfortable playing what must be played on a necessity, on a sufficiency and surely after 1 hour and 15 minutes you must have had enough of me.
Erik: I have two questions, that I really must ask, otherwise I will jump off the roof. As a guitarplayer you have more or less totally avoided the blues cliche's. Why?
Because I could not speak truthfully within that idiom.
Erik: Okay.
It is not...this implies no pejorative comment on the blues whatsoever. For me what interests me, excites me, moves me in blues music is the passion and the feel but not the vocabulary. So, the question for me was "What would Hendrix sing like playing the Barto'k string quartet?" or "If Bartók was writing for Hendrix, what then?". That was my interest. The passion, but the vocabulary... alright, perhaps my taste was more sophisticated than that, perhaps it was just my lack of penetration, to find a completely satisfying experience within that vocabulary. So how to take that farther? One approach to that was Larks Tongues In Aspic, one of them was Red, one was Vrooom.
Erik: But it must have been scary being in Terra Incognita, walking on untreaded land, having to make your own path?
Even Ian McDonald in the first line-up didn't like my guitar playing. I think he preferred Hendrix.
Erik: Did it ever bother you? It does not sound like anything else. You must have been <...>, always playing as you wished.
It is true that my playing has been insulted over a period of 30 years, at least.
Erik: Still.
Well yes certainly it seems to be very divided between people that very much like it and people that really don't like it. And I accept that that is so. In terms of reading the press, my view is that one reads all of it, or one reads none of it. Reading all the press there are many people who really really hate it and many who really really like it. And as a body of consensual opinion which I can trust, they cancel eachother out. So finally I have to ask myself: "Is this true?". And if the answer is yes I perceive, and if there is not a sufficient sense of legitimacy or authenticity in what I am doing, then the answer is no. And if I'm not sure, I might keep on going until I do.
I have one question about DGM and how it might evolve in the future. I'm myself very much involved in internet and that stuff. Especially things like MPEG copying and CD copying. How do you feel that the music industry and your own record label can deal with this kind of development.
I can't speak for the music industry. But at the moment the movements would seem to be to the center of control. Quickly what is happening now to the music industry. Two things are happening, entirely contradictory simultaneously. In the center, the center is getting stronger. You have the acquisition by Universal, Seagram in Canada, which acquired Polygram recently. They had already acquired MCA, which already acquired Geffen. It is called Unigram. You have a fixing in the center. The dinosaurs are becoming more and more dinosaur like. On the periphery, you have the small mobile units, becoming more and more so, with technology enabling. So both things are happening at the same time. In terms of being able to download sonic stream direct from the net, Discipline are at the moment close to developing a relationship with a company that has this technology. There are a lot of companies doing this, not just one or two, almost dozens, and it is a question of us finding, as a company, the company we feel sympathy with. So fairly soon someone coming to Discipline... we currently have three levels of distribution: through shops -- most of our artists need not be in shops --, secondly mailorder where you know what you want and you can get it, and thirdly for sale at point of sale at shows, arists selling records. Downloading a digital stream straight from the net is in fact mailorder. So very soon -- if you say "How soon?", then I say as soon as we can -- this will be a feature of Discipline. Now at the moment -- have you been to America lately? -- in America, the internet is like picking up an telephone. In England it is like sending a fax message ten years ago. So the server we have in England for the Discipline website, demon, can't handle encryption with credit-cards. This is utter disaster! So there we are in a little English village in the country side, dropping our English server and going to one in America, because it is quicker. And it can take place, it is absurd. But nevertheless that would do it. So yes technology is making it possible on the periphery the small independent units. Interestingly, General Motors America its stockvalue is now less than amazon.com. It doesn't mean that amazon.com is actually worth more or less. I mean it's all shares.
Erik: It's all virtual...
Well if you were trading on Wall Street, you will be asked to part with more than virtual money.
But to copying now. How does the ease of copying affect the relationship between an artist and the listener?
Artists are used to being violated on a daily basis. If you say to me: "Because you got fucked up the ass yesterday, would you mind being fucked up the ass today?", then I would say "Today I'd rather not, and yesterday I'd rather not too". And you'll say: "But tomorrow three people can do it simultaneously?" [laughter] and I'd say: "Tomorrow I'd rather not either". So you are asking me to address the conscience of people in the world. And all I can say is: I can't speak for you. But if Discipline seeks to be an ethical company, then we hope the listening community which supports us, will support us.
I was amazed at this album by Colin Scot from the early seventies, listing all those names: Bob Fripp, Peter Hammill, Rick Wakeman, Jon Anderson, Peter Gabriel. Do you play on that?
Yes I do. I was asked to do the sessions and I -- I think Colin Scot also supported King Crimsons tour in Europe in 1973, I think he supported us in Holland. A very nice man, very nice man. And I forget the mutual friend, maybe someone from the record company that asked me if I'd play and I said "Sure".
Erik: Could I ask a quick question about the tuning?
Yes.
Erik: A way of deconditioning, deconditioning?
Yes, that was one of the effects it has.
Erik: You felt it necessary at the time? Because in ten years you might want to decondition yourself on the new tuning.
It is not quite like that. The question demands a certain kind of answer. And the answer, the one the question demands, falls short of the question I give you. Well if you said "Where did the tuning come from?", then I would say it was inspired. So you'd say "Did you have a dissatisfaction with the E A D G B E?" and I'd say yes, I did have a dissatisfaction with it.
Erik: But why? What were the shortcomings?
Well, pick up a guitar and tune E A D G B E, play it for thirty years and answer the question yourself.
Erik: I've played it for twentyfive years.
Well, that's long enough, that's long enough. Why was the tuning, why was the tuning limited. Well, I suppose you'd have to say because I was not able to place my skills as a guitarist at the service of the muse to a degree which convinced me. You'd have to say it was a dissatisfaction then. And when the tuning flew by, I wasn't fully able to respond. And it was only later that I recognized where the tuning came from, what the tuning was there for. And you'd say to me "Was it for deconditioning?" and I would say "That's part of it, but if I said yes, then that would imply that that was all of it and it was just one of several things." The creative impulses deconditioning in its effect, but that is not the aim of it.
Erik: No, it is a means to an end so to speak.
That is a closer way of describing it, but then you'd have to take a closer look at the different forms of creative play, there are six.
You participated in this G-3 experience I heard?
Yes. I was G-4. It was wonderful. It was the only kind of experience I ever had, certainly up until that time, where I felt myself in a supportive performing environment.
Erik: Really. Jeez.
And that is a good feeling?
You mean, rather than the alternative? Yes! It is not bad at all. They wanted me to play for something like twenty minutes. And I said I'll play from when the doors open. I will be the play-on act to the audience and that is what happened. I remember once I played for an hour and a half and I went off and they told me I still had to play for half an hour. I said "Alright, I'll go back on for half an hour".
A lot of people were surprised that you would do this.
I was surprised that they asked me, but it was wonderful, I loved it. And I was hoping to come to Europe with them last year, but there wasn't sufficient definition in the tour dates and I couldn't leave my calender open so I had to say that I was awfully sorry, but I can't do it.
Erik: Can you play Fracture with the new tuning? It is seemingly impossible.
Yeah, I do. I slightly rearranged it, I made it shorter a bit. Yes I do, I play it as a practical piece, a practice piece, because it remains one of the most difficult things I've ever done.
The Consequences Of Angelic Behaviour?
Yeah, the Repercussions Of Angelic Behaviour.
Oh, that is the title? Somebody asked me to pose this question.
They made a mistake.
It features you, Trey Gunn and Bill Rieflin, right?
Yes. Bill Rieflin is currently looking for a way of releasing it in some other form for the independent artist in Seattle. He's currently accepted responsibility for that.
Not something for DGM then?
We were considering releasing it as a (Discipline) club release and if Bill doesn't release it then we might.
Why not an ordinary DGM release? Is it so different?
It is more appropriate for the collectors club, because it is thinking out loud. And it's thinking out loud and speaking roughly to indicate the center of gravity. And the collectors is a more appropriate form for that, than a mainstream release which you can find in the shops.
I'm afraid to say I write for this magazine about progressive rock...
Then I have nothing to say to you ... and since we have been doing this for an hour and a half....