…about Robert’s photos and description of his wife’s public appearences and attention: Without any doubt he prefers not being the center of attention and seems to revel in his wife being that center instead.
Over the years Fripp has given many well thought-reasoned and elucidated opinions on why he doesn’t sign autographs, why he opposes the ‘fetishization’, etc.., etc…and some of those arguments I buy.
In the end, however, I don’t think they matter much in light of the fact that Fripp is simply not well equipped or comfortable being all that famous.
Is that so wrong? On the contrary, perhaps this is one of the key strengths of his work and playing.
We always seem to want our music or acting favs to be great people, or to be able to navigate being famous or the center of attention with aplomb and perfect, superhuman grace. We want them to be better than ourselves, and perhaps we believe that this is what has made them ‘deserve’ the fame they have, because being famous is of course good and it’s own reward, right?
Sometimes, we seem to believe that life makes some kind of contract with people, and rewards those that obey certain unwritten rules and standards of behavior. Perhaps we secretly believe that we, too, will be worthy of such wondrous fame if only we can attain to the proper code of conduct and standard.
Woe to those that disobey that code, because life will withdraw their fame, and indeed we ourselves will not reward them with our attention and money. In other words, if they dissappoint us or act human or flawed or strangely (in particular when we are giving them our attention), then they are no longer worth of the fame and success that they have. And in fact, now that I listen to their music or watch their movies, I realize they suck but I didn’t realize that before I interacted with Celebrity X.
Could this be because we never were actually listening? Or what we were listening to was not really music at all.
7 responses so far ↓
coutant christophe // Jun 27, 2008 at 6:05 am
Hello
This is a very good point of view. And I should say more than a point of view: this is the corect analyse. Being both musician and also fan, I recognize myself in the way I sometime react and in the way sometimes people react when I’m off stage and sometimes when I’m on stage in my humble and short level of touring mostly in small and unknown venues which I believe is a good thing for my mental safe !!
Amitié de France
Darren // Jun 27, 2008 at 8:15 am
You are pondering the nature of fame and the famous and its relation to us “normal” people. If you are a performer, whether you be a musician, artist, actor or whatever, you have to be “known” in order to earn cash. Fame puts bums on seats, reputations make the cash till ring its sweet song and the more famous people are, the more money us “normal” folk will pay to be delighted by them. It’s a strange relationship, but one that makes perfect sense - because there is a transaction involved. You pay your money, the artist changes your perception of the world for the moment.
The problem Fripp has is that he wanted the fame and money once, but now cannot accept that there are certain responsibilities an artist has. For him, being an artist is a one-way street…and that’s fine if you live in a world where you can control other people. You can’t. The delightful thing about the human race is just how blooming well random our behaviour can be. Sometimes it can be boringly predictable.
Perhaps Fripp would have been better equipped as an estate agent? Maybe he would have been happier? I doubt it, because being an estate agent isn’t the pussy magnet being a rock star is.
The saying is “He made his bed, so he has to lie in it”. He spent years cultivating the cult of Fripp and now he doesn’t want to be a member of his own club.
To be famous, you have to establish the brand, and work hard at getting that brand into the media, whether or not there’s any talent involved. It’s business. Fripp doesn’t want the business. Fair enough, retire. Stop bleating about how unfair life is and actually admit that you’ve had a good time of it. These people are blessed and they don’t even realise it. If you have a talent, share it and be happy. If you don’t want to share it, then hide it away and disappear.
The true artist works for free, dies poor and gets fame years after his death. These rock stars will be long forgotten while the likes of Rembrandt, Picasso, Mozart, Beethoven, etc will live on forever. Rock music is a blip in popular culture, only being around for fifty years or so. Jazz is a little older. The point is that in 100 years time, no-one will remember Fripp or King Crimson. The Beatles will still be talked about and so will Elvis Presley, but this is just pop culture, to be discarded like a used Kleenex. Too much analysis kills the joy, but at least Fripp knows you are thinking about him. When you stop thinking about him, he ceases to exist.
zoidberg // Jun 27, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Well, Darren, even if you are correct about Fripp originally having desired fame and fortune, is it so wrong for someone older to have tasted that and then realized it wasn’t what everybody said it was?
And then, what if you actually like music and making it, and need to continue on in the public eye to some extent? I wouldn’t know how to navigate that, and Fripp seems to be finding some weird, Fripper-medium that is a few steps short of going the Glenn Gould route and declaring any form of ‘performance’ an inherent bastardization of pure music.
geno // Jun 27, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I have no doubt that if asked, RF would say that his singular intent was to get the music out into the world for its chance to be heard, and that any personal fame is a regrettable but inevitable side effect.
zoidberg // Jun 28, 2008 at 4:11 am
Well, that’s an important issue too: Artists, I think, are kind of forced to become spokespersons for their work, particularly as the work of an artist has a lot to do with who they are themselves and what they are communicating about their lives.
I guess the problem is that Industry packages the person with the music, trying to sell the notion that, by purchasing their music, you are buying-in to their perceived lifestyle and personality. This has to have some kind of effect on at least younger RockStars, particular as it is their perceived personality and lifestyle that is on sale.
Darren // Jun 28, 2008 at 11:43 am
Again, the problem with Fripp is that he is a white, middle-class Englishman who would be more suited sitting on the parish council of his village than being a rock-n-roll star in so much that he has an obsession with trying to control his fan’s behaviour and is uncompromising in his outlook to his performing life. Of course, he’ll have half-a-dozen “look at me I’m cleverer than you” aphorisms to make him sound right but think about his behaviour in different contexts and you’ll realise that he is petulant to the point of foolishness.
If, for example, Beyonce Knowles was performing on stage and someone took her photo with a flash bulb, resulting in her leaving the stage, she would be regarded as acting like a diva and probably laughed at. It would harm her career if she refused to perform if anyone took a photo of her or viddyed her surreptitiously. But because this is Fripp and he is supposedly some great artist and we are all supposed to take his word as law, we stroke our earnest chins and concur. If this was a child acting like this, they would get their bottom spanked and told to behave themselves. If you are going to get up on stage and make a show of yourself, expect people to take notice and take pictures. It goes with the territory.
The relationship between musician and fan in one of inequality in all forms. Follow my music, listen to what I say, but don’t get too close. Don’t try and shake my hand and thank me because that is an invasion of my personal space, but you can buy some more product from me so that I can expand my property portfolio, while bemoaning the fact that I am a poor rock star. Boo-hoo.
I don’t like having my photo taken that much, but whenever I buy a ticket to concert I give up all my copyright when I enter the arena because the artist on the stage owns my likeness for the duration of the performance and can viddy me or record my cheers of adulation and make money from me when the live album comes out. I don’t get a share of the profits, even though I have added my contribution to the performance. Do you hear me complain? No, because I’d sound a complete prat if I did.
The purest form of artistry occurs when no transaction takes place, when the performance is given away, when there are no expectations and no responsibilities. When Fripp did his Churchscapes in England, he played for free in a performing space that lent itself to the performance. It was pure. The problem is that Fripp wants money for his art and for that, you have to sell a bit of yourself. That is a fact.
I’m not having a go at Frippy boy, I am just bored with his argument and continual whinging, which makes no sense if you actually sit down and think about it. “I am a rock star - don’t look at me. Aahhhhh!”. You don’t stick your hand in the fire and then complain when you get burnt, do you?
zoidberg // Jul 3, 2008 at 4:54 am
Darren:
Well, oddly enough I’m kind of agreeing with you, insofar as being a celebrity/rockstar in the 20th/21st century isn’t a natural thing. It’s not something grow up knowing how to deal with, nor is there a lot of people around to just grab and talk to and socialize with sufficiently to learn how to handle this emotionally.
You say it best here:
“the problem with Fripp is that he is a white, middle-class Englishman who would be more suited sitting on the parish council of his village”
And you know what? This is probably why his music has remained meaningful, precisely because he isn’t a very good rock ’star’. In other words, he isn’t all that well equipped to handle the oddness and asymmetry with modern rock.
Meanwhile, though he never really says it much, I think he actually LIKES making music with King Crimson, on the better nights. So maybe the Fripperantics are what a regular middle class Englishman comes up with in order to handle what is really an abnormal situation.
Is that so bad? I would submit that the personality qualifications that select many rock musicians are not the same as those that would select the people who would make the best music.
Leave a Comment