In seeking to raise the frequency level of engagement…
In seeking to raise the frequency level of engagement, in order to see the humanity of the other person directly, I have used different approaches at different times, places and situations. For example…
- The application of reason: to present arguments as to why the demand is inappropriate.
- To challenge the reason for the demand.
- To call out the assumption.
Michael Dornbier: …I approached you as you were sitting alone out in the venue (Ballard, WA LoCG) before the show…
Often I go out into the auditorium/performance space, collect myself, feel the energy/spirit of the place, and tune the air to welcome in the performance.
Michael Dornbier: ...just to say, 'Thank you'...before being accosted by two big ass dudes…
It is an axiom - Protect The Talent. I note that most attempts and efforts to provide “protection” and “security” for the artist fail to do so and often generate unfortunate repercussions, even the opposite to that of the originating aim: enabling the performer to perform without disruption to their process. Rather than bringing people together, security can keep them further apart. Resentments are generated, often reasonably IMO, regardless of punter expectations.
Conventional security at rock shows is problematic, for several reasons on several levels. Only a few examples…
1. Security personnel are not usually subtle operators and require clear direction and handling. Example: KC 2014-2021.
2.
i) Security personnel have their own agenda; eg regular security at specific venues are more interested in protecting the perceived interests of the venue than the interests of that night’s performers. The local punters will keep returning to that space and get miffed if their entirely reasonable demands made of the artist, and expectations of how the artist responds, are frustrated - specific examples at KC shows: no viddying, no photography, no recording. The artists won’t be back for at least two years, the punters will be back next week. Whose interests are security most likely to protect? Example: KC at Toronto Massey Hall 2003.
ii) Individual security persons using their access to artists to bring friends back-stage for selfies et al. Contemporary examples available.
3. Security staff are toughies out to provoke a punch-up. (Example: KC Bristol Top Rank 1972. Although I seem to remember this as Cardiff, which would have been the Capitol Theatre in either 1971 or 1972. The security staff threw the PA speakers down the stairs to help KC roadies pack up our gear).
4. Individual security persons refrain from engaging in confrontation with members of the public. I have no objection to security staff protecting their wellbeing in front of threatening behaviour. (My physical wellbeing has also been threatened: 30th. or 31st. October 2000 following the KC show at Park West, Chicago. A car of audients followed us back to the hotel and when, in the hotel forecourt I declined autography, Pat Mastelotto had to restrain the enraged audient from following me into the lobby and punching me out).
5. Disruption to other audients and the performance through the operation of security.
No security staff are authorised to speak on my behalf, including those at Ballard, and Robert Fripp does engage, but not where this prejudices his performance. The form of engagement is not necessarily in the form demanded by the innocent - who only wanted just to say “Thank you”.
Fripp was afraid of having his soul stolen…
Posted on FB 11march2022: Andrew Spitzer: A signature is a talisman, and Fripp was afraid of having his soul stolen.
At Washington Square Church with The League Of Crafty Guitarists, April 11/12th. 1988, of two young men, probably teenagers, one reached out and touched me as The League Of Crafty Guitarists were promenading past them in a confined space. He turned to his friend with laughing face and a – I’ve done it! – look, as if they had set themselves a dare: the task of touching Fripp. These two young men had come to get me (I believe not maliciously) and they did. My experience was of energy instantaneously leaving my presence. In the traditional form of words, I sensed a loss of virtue - "Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me".
This is one of the subtleties of performance life, actuality and not imagination.
Historically, online reports of how I experience the attention of those who exercise various rights over my person have been met with disbelief (primarily by those who are exercising these presumed rights). An example, photography, much of which in my professional life has been predatory. One criterion for assessing this: how many photographers, knowingly requested to refrain, have continued snapping away with the intention of contributing to the performance?
But perhaps this is simply another example of Fripp’s cosmic horseshit.
Joan Bull: Women understand this concept especially.
Leslie Stevens>Joan Bull: agree :(
Entering the performance space…
We enter the performance space intentionally. For example, paying attention to the first footfall over the threshold.
The Four Primary Injunctions…
The First Injunction, when entering a performance space: Define the space. It is sacred.
The Second Injunction: Organise the space. That is, introduce a higher level of order to the conditions we find.
The Third Injunction: Protect the space. There will be many with attitude who seek to draw on the energy of the event, and pounce when sensing vulnerability.
The Fourth Injunction: Hold the space. This determined by the quality and intensity of our presence.
