Re: Beyond Fripp

[Dave Stagner <dstagner@icarus.net>]

Something about this particular thread makes me a little
uncomfortable.  It's not intended to "dis" Fripp, but that's sort of
how it comes off.  It seems like people are faulting Fripp for not
going far enough, not being sufficiently dynamic, not being
experimental enough.  

I don't believe an artist must continually break new ground for ever
and ever.  Fripp has found a formula for looping that works for him,
and he practices his art within a set of self-imposed limitations.  To
my ears, Fripp's looping has always been oriented toward developing
textures by layering simple, consistent tones, a sort of minimalist
expressionism where tonal color is all-important.  Dynamics, movement,
and tonal variety distract the listener from the details of texture.  

If this is Fripp's intent, then he has nothing to gain by playing more
dynamically.  Saying that our work, or the work of someone who
emphasizes dynamics like David Torn is "beyond Fripp" strikes me as
similar to saying that Eddie Van Halen is "beyond Segovia".  After
all, Segovia limited himself to a classical guitar and an ancient
repertoire, right?  Eddie's playing is much more creative and
dynamic. 

Please, don't compare musicians like this.  It's not a competition.
Respect Robert Fripp for his incomparable achievements, but don't
fault him for not going where you want him to go.  

Damn.  Now I wanna go listen to "Requiem"...

-dave

By "beauty," I mean that which seems complete.
Obversely, that the incomplete, or the mutilated, is the ugly. 
Venus De Milo.
To a child she is ugly.       /* dstagner@icarus.net */
   -Charles Fort