Re: Fripp news

[Rainer Thelonius Balthasar Straschill <moinsound@googlemail.com>]

In the case of Fripp, there seems to be several issues he is or has been 
dealing with/suffering from (and the source for the majority of my 
statements here are Fripp's writings, either in liner notes or in his 
diary):
1. Ethics of the business model (aka "the old business model") in the 
recording industry
2. Ethics in fulfilling contractual obligations by specific members of 
the recording industry
3. Ethics of artist management (specifically: those who had represented 
Fripp during the 70s)
4. Borderlining-illegal conflict of interest in artist management
5. Unsound advice in financial matters (given to Fripp)
6. The unwillingness to continue existing as a touring musician
7. Press giving erroneous statements based on what someone allegedly 
said to them.

So, first of all, that Fripp will never make music again (as it came 
over from the article) may or may not be the case (7). In fact, it 
seemed that Fripp had planned on something like this much earlier, 
especially when it came to King Crimson, but also other projects, but 
was forced to tour again to make up for severe financial losses in shady 
investment schemes (6, 5).

We all had discussed (like about everybody else) the old business model 
(1) here, and of course Fripp did so, too. However, his situation was 
somewhat specific, and a lot of it has obviously to do with (2), (3) and 
(4), namely that for a considerable amount of time, Fripp (as many other 
KC members of that time) was represented as an artist by EG and was 
signed to the same EG as a record label.
As Fripp said in one of his writings, a change began when in the 80s due 
to the collaboration with Belew in King Crimson, an artist within the 
band was suddenly represented by very competent management who was not 
the record label and for once tried to honor the interests of the artist.

However, all of those issues in combination seem to be specific to Fripp 
(and maybe a handful of other artists), but can't be seen as a general 
statement about the viability of the old business model from an Artist's 
point of view. More specifically: if you were a top-selling artist in 
the olden days (like Fripp was), then you usually received your share, 
which, while by an ethical understanding was to small relatively, was 
still enough in absolute numbers to allow for a decent retirement.

On a completely different approach, we've seen things like (6) happen in 
the past as well: Glenn Gould retired from touring very early, and later 
even retired from performing to focus on composing (and died a few days 
afterwards). So while this isn't the rule by any means (hey, we do all 
like to play on a big stage to an engaged audience, don't we?), it has 
been reported to happen...

         Rainer

Am 07.09.2012 11:33, schrieb Per Boysen:
> "The old business model" was based on the fact that records sold well.
> http://www.dprp.net/wp/?p=7155