Robert Fripp and the teletubbies.

So, one thing that I have been reading recently is the online diary of Robert Fripp, best known as the husband of the blond lady from Teletubbies. Oh, and he played guitar in a band called King Crimson as well. I've always wondered what would possess someone to keep an online diary (writes the guy doing a blog...) and made a point of reading all of this years entry to get a feel for what he is trying to accomplish. And what has he accomplished? Well....

1. A complete visual encyclopedia of the small English town that he lives in - He takes pictures of the main street every time he walks down it. I can only imagine how much money he spent on film before the digital camera came along.
2. A pretty clear picture of how he feels about certain aspects of the music industry.

Fripp's company (DGM) were one of the first to be vocal about the rights of artists to keep their copyrights, instead of signing them over to publishers, record companies etc. He is currently taking time off from making music in order to prevent others from violating the copyrights to Crimson music that he holds. Isn't it sad that that talent is being used to email lawyers about legal issues and not to make music? Even being an independent artist is no guarantee to keeping your rights - if you license your music to someone and they continue to use it after the license ends you would be in exactly the same position that Fripp finds himself.

And the solution? Well, to start with, how about we live in a world that everyone gets along and treats each other fairly and with respect. Since this is unlikely to happen, how about a world where people understand the concept of fair exchange. Does a professional athlete deserve to make a million dollars a year? If he is selling five million worth of tickets for the owner, then maybe he does. If a CEO is earning fifty million running a company that is two billion in debt does he deserve his money? Does a musician deserve to make money from their music? If they are making money for someone else, then certainly a fair share should go to them.

I do understand the need for people who make investments in artists to see some return for what they put in - it's only fair. Do they need 95% of it? I don't think so. Sadly, the only way to keep the majority of the money in the artist hands is to have them fund and distribute their own work. I'm as well off selling 100 cd's for $5 each if I get to keep all the money rather that getting 5% of a thousand at $10. I would rather have a thousand fans, though - and that's what the record companies and distributors give you access to. Again, is this worth 95% of the money?

The consumer enters into this as well. Is it fair to charge $20 for a cd when you could sell it for $10 and maybe sell twice as many? Or have it at a price that people don't feel ripped off and resort to p2p sites?

Fair Exchange!! Unfortunately, it costs money to make music - shouldn't everyone receive fair compensation for their work? Whether you are the musician, the engineer, the graphic artist, the financier or the consumer, we should all get what we deserve. It's a big pie, after all. Everyone deserves their bit.

catfishman.

Fripp's Diary : http://www.dgmlive.com/search_diaries.htm?diarist=3

edcbcdecabcfef....et al.

For those of you who are looking at the title and going "What?..." try humming the letter names as musical pitches to the rhythm of "A Whiter Shade of Pale" and you'll probably get the idea. Written by one Matthew Fisher and the source of his claim to have co-written the song with Gary Brooker and Keith Reid.

Fisher sued Brooker and Reid for both a claim to the title and royalties ensuing from such. Fair enough, it is probably the catchiest part of the tune and well deserving of some recognition. The old way of distributing credit to only the melody and lyric writer is well out of date in an era when samples and guitar riffs are the focus point of much popular music.

My question is where do we draw the line between the creation of the song and the filling in of parts? Is not writing the drum part really why the drummer is in the band? Why he receives his session fee/salary/share of the gig money? Sure. But what if it is a fantastic, unique drum part? Steve Gadd on "50 ways to lose your lover"? Neil Peart on just about anything Rush have done? There are a number of their songs that one of the others have written lyrics for that he gets no credit for. How about the Police? Summers and Copeland gave that music it's unique sound. Sure, Sting writes some good tunes but do they sound the same without the other guys? And of course the big question.....Does the guy who played the cowbell on "Don't fear the reaper" deserve a co-writing credit?

I'm sure every musician with a lawyer who didn't have a work for hire contract thrust in front of them for a piece of music they performed is going to be looking at this and going "hmmm...that tambourine part I played in that song really was the most important part of the song. I should be getting a percentage of that." and who's to say that they are wrong. Maybe the cowbell is the best part of "Reaper".

Last thought - as a guitar player, my solos are my trademark (Nigel Tufnel - Rock God) and riffs are frequently created from the most basic of chord progressions. As a songwriter, I create music out of nothing. Which is more important? The song has to come first, yes but does it really matter what chord progression Jan Hammer was soloing over in the Mahavishnu Orchestra?I don't know the answer but I'm pretty sure that courts everywhere will be trying to find out before long - especially as the aging rock musicians of the 60's and 70's look for ways to retire in comfort. Maybe sanity will reign and people will settle without involving the courts. And maybe Matthew Fisher will start playing with Procol Harum again.

Catfishman.