Robert Fripp's Diary for Tuesday, 27th November 2007

Robert Fripp's Diary

	Tuesday, 27th November 2007

08.41

Bredonborough.

Mr. Cheese & Mick Electrical came through the back door at 07.30, followed not long afterwards by joiners & painters & our Wonder Cleaning Person. I hesitate to type any of this into the Diary in case grammatical errors, spell-checkers set to American, and the elision between oral & literate modes upset readers sensitive to contours in the English language; much as I am upset myself when I read complimentary for complementary at the gratis breakfasting troughs of modest accommodations; and other careless, unmusical renderings of the language. So today, are we applying pragmatical, anthropological, historical, sociolinguistic, neurolinguistic and/or poetical functionality to our consideration of language use?

Is diarising a bloggation? Not quite. What’s the difference? Apart from verb & noun: partly the intent, partly the age of the diariser, partly the technology of depiction, dissemination & distribution of the Diary (words beginning with D this time). And this Diary (it is not a blog) might actually be a Journal. But hey! if we opt for pragmatics, nearly everything is explicable, if not easily forgivable. DGM Guestbookers may, perhaps, paraphrase Jonson: when we name pragmatics, we understand not the vulgar pragmatics… but what we call pragmatics is the consent of the learned. Jonson is also recorded as saying that he didn’t trust a man who spelt a word only one way (paraphrase). Wimborne – Wimbourne to that, I say; or Phryppe – Frip to you, pal (both variant forms of the family name, found in the Witchampton parish records held in Witchampton Church, and researched by my Father).

As an English- (and half-Welsh)man of a certain age, with a grammar school education, I enjoy Fowler’s rather dogmatic & prescriptive stance (you know where you stand with Fowler); and happy also that authorities in the English language are currently more accepting of variant & deviant language use. Because otherwise I’d be fucked. And how can I possibly use the word fucked to end a sentence up with?

And, to quote Ouspensky (to Rodney Collin): What do you mean by “I”?

Building work is much simpler.

Tom is a happy boy…

Mr. Amphlett is a happy man…

Mr. Amphlett’s men are (probably) happy I…

II…

Up the stairs…

… Mr. Cheese le Grand is a happy fromage…

And no parsing problems in our construction-discourses today.

11.23 E-flurrying

12.25 The Christmas tree has arrived. Hooray!

14.52 Pictures removed from the kitchen for ceiling-painting tomorrow. Scullery-painting continues apace.

15.03 An interesting arising, this one not for those investing their time seeking inexactitudes in chinks of grammatical armour on this Diary (not of itself a complex task) but for those visiting-innocents who took a recent interest in the news of KC material being downloaded by EMI without permission, some time after EMI’s licence rights expired; and also for those who might have noticed references to recent correspondence with Sanctuary - who is / are essentially the same company as before management, ownership & aspects of their business policy changed along with their acquisition by UMG.

In the DGM / Sanctuary contract, negotiated by David & myself during some very late-night calls with the Sanctuary lawyer in NYC (during our production-editing sessions for King Crimson’s TPTB in 2002), we specifically excluded download rights (while inserting the re-organisation clause which we are told doesn’t apply because Sanctuary have not re-organised).

Sanctuary have been downloading The Power To Believe without permission; not only without permission, but despite a clause specifically excluding Sanctuary’s right to do so.

Our distributor, Panegyric, has written to Mr. Sanctuary Lawyer today…

We’ve noticed "The Power to Believe" album by King Crimson available
online from a number of sources (iTunes, Rhapsody/Comcast in the US etc.)…
There is a specific exclusion in the contract over downloads.

In the definition of "record" (the things they can sell), paragraph 1i reads ".....digital file or other configuration for so-called digital downloading will not be included in the definition of Record unless otherwise agreed in writing by Company"… I’d be grateful if you’d address this as a matter of urgency please.

I have this afternoon also e-written to Mr. Sanctuary Lawyer, the lawyer who sent me this on 12 November…

"Reorganisation" in the context of company law is a term of art - i.e it has a specialised meaning. It does not relate to changes in personnel, which is what you are referring to when you talk of changes to the company.

Essentially, SRGL is still the same company - it is just owned by different people.

A term of art? That’s a great line.

And my e-letter to Mr. Sanctuary Lawyer…

I’m wondering if "record" in the context of company law is a term of art - ie it has a specialised meaning that does not relate to Sanctuary?

17.11 An afternoon practising.

18.52 I have sent a second letter to Mr. Sanctuary Lawyer…

The Sanctuary-downloading of KC, expressly in violation of the clause (upon which I await your comment) has returned my attention to your earlier e-mail...

In a message dated 12/11/2007 11:47:02 "Reorganisation" in the context of company law is a term of art - i.e it has a specialised meaning. It does not relate to changes in personnel, which is what you are referring to when you talk of changes to the company.

Essentially, SRGL is still the same company - it is just owned by different people.

This is not strictly accurate. You are telling me what I am referring to, and then exclude part of what I am referring to: the change of ownership. A change of ownership brings a different company culture to bear, and so “re-organisation” goes further than mere changes in personnel (even where this refers to those who ran the company & embodied a different culture to the different people that now own the company).

Essentially, SRGL is not the same company. Essence is the distinguishing, individual DNA of a company or person. Existentially, Sanctuary may be the same company; essentially, it is quite other. Were it not, we would not be having this correspondence - because you would be the same company that understood the intent of the re-organisation clause, and therefore agreeing with me.

But, no doubt, these are terms with a specialised meaning, and no doubt you will tell me that they don’t mean, in the context of company law, what they mean outside it.

Meanwhile, I look forward to whether the definition of "record" in company law is a term of art; or whether it means a record.

19.11 Enough. Heroic efforts today have brought the inbox down from 290 to 304.

The dressing room…