On this day years ago

10.04
On this day 35 years ago my Sister got on a boat in Southampton, waved goodbye to our Mother, Auntie Maureen & her friend Sue Cameron, and sailed off to the New World. We have just spoken on the telephone, and she has reminded me of this anniversary date, as I have reminded her of another.

I

Crimson is nothing if not a learning process. We all have the responsibility to know who and what we are. This is not an end in itself, but a beginning. In the proper work of a musician, this beginning is the transformation that is the alchemy of music. The transforming & transformative process is individual, social & (as far as I am able to employ the word from my pitiable perspective) cosmic. "Cosmic" is like, for example, when music leans over, picks us up & takes us flying.

If anyone reading this has their own experience of when music's power switches onto download, you know in your core that accepting anything less than this, for a musician, is a form of lying. Knowing this, you also know that in any field of endeavour involving a group of human beings, personal frictions will arise. If this endeavour is conducted in the public eye, these frictions will become public. If this endeavour is conducted in a field mediated by commerce, these frictions will become complicated.

So what is King Crimson? Here are several approaches:

The individuals in the group/s. The group/s of individuals. A society in microcosm. A business structure. A musical repertoire. A way of doing things. A place where the conditioned and unconditioned meet. A school of practical learning.

II

A group is composed of individuals. A group is not the sum of those individuals. A group forms in service of an aim. It may not articulate that aim, but continue to function nevertheless.

The aim of the 1969 Crimson was to be "the best group in the world" (or as Ian puts it: "There was a very singular vision for the group"). In popular culture this easily becomes confused with "the most successful group in the world". This easily becomes a search for territory, food and sexual partners. At which point the music may get forgotten, or lost. But whatever we may understand by being "the best group in the world", indisputably it is a commitment to excellence. This doesn't imply being solemn, even serious, but it does suggest that anything which falls short of our best shot is less than acceptable.

A real group is a distinct identity that "exists" apart from its components. More accurately, the individuality of the group can only come into existence through an appropriate vehicle. Music is an unconditioned quality which needs a musician / group to bring it within the conditions of space, time & place; this so that music may realise & listen to itself in and through us. When music comes to life, is it possible to feel apart from the power we are hearing & sensing? Somehow, we are the music. Somehow, the music is part of us. Somehow, there is no distance between audience & player.

And then the group breaks up. The press cites "musical & personal differences": "Well, I loved him like a bruvver but he wanted more money". "My respect for him is undiminished but he shagged the boiler I had my eye on". "A great talent but the drink got to him". "He had no feel but owned the name".

III

How may we judge "success"? A creative process provides no guarantees. If it does, the process is not creative. Any process will inevitably go off-course at certain points. Knowing this, we can prepare to correct & re-direct the process at those points. Not knowing this, the process will go wrong - this is guaranteed - and then we won't know what to do. Experience helps, but can take too long. Information helps, but devoid of experience is relatively useless. Information & experience are a strong combination, but without capacity and a commitment to the process, equally as useless & probably dangerous.

If we look at an unfolding process in time (history, in other words) we'll find "success" with failures & "failure" with successes, and different kinds of time. The functional time which flows sequentially & cyclically: the uniquity of Time's Arrow (cf Prigogine) & the recurrence of Time's Cycle. Then there is the time I am able to bear: perhaps eternity is the word for this. And yet another kind of time, which moves from intention & decision.

However lofty, abstruse & difficult notions of time are to express, for the musician time is utterly practical. Time - the universal, & our experience of the ongoing present; timing - the unique direction & emphasis of a moment; tempo - the rate at which we experience the flow of time; time signatures - the division of flows into organised units that we may control, direct & shape our experiencing of the universal. Moving "in" and "out" of time; rubato; "good" time - where we submit & surrender our personal flow to the tempo of community; "bad" time - where we disrupt the unfolding of a process and subject it to the demands of our egotism. What a wonderful metaphoric and analogical language music gives us.

Time's Arrow is irreversible: only in retrospect does the outcome appear to have been inevitable (cf. Albert Borgmann "Holding On To Reality", p.232: "History ? is the meaningful sequence of unpredictable events"). Nothing in Crimson's tortured history has been inevitable, other than the chaotic manner in which it moves forward. Which is, at least, predictable. Where King Crimson is now, is not the only place Crimson might have arrived (before moving on). From this point of view, Crimson history is one of decision & choice. Earlier members who might wish to recreate and develop an earlier approach (or "way of doing things") have a legitimate interest in doing so. If they do, I'll be somewhere in the front rows cheering them on. But it won't be King Crimson.

The procession of events is undeniable, and King Crimson is where it is today because it got there. It is impossible to undo the effect of "Larks' Tongues", "Red", "Discipline", Double Trio & ProjeKcts on what King Crimson has become. Crim grew up and left home, and isn't going back; whether any of us would like it to, or not. If I believed that Ian, Mike, Greg, Peter & Bob would be taken into music's confidence once more, I would already have made the calls and/or positively responded to theirs over the past 9 years.

IV

Peter Sinfield's view of Crimson history, during the period of his involvement, is as valid and "authoritative" as mine. So are the views and commentaries of all the members in respect of the period of their involvement. A collection of personal histories would present a broader perspective on Crimson history than is presently available, which I encourage & welcome. I don't know any Crim member who looks back on their active service in Crimson time with unalloyed joy, but almost all are proud of their work.

All the accounts are equally "true", given goodwill, and all accounts are partial. But all the accounts taken together could not add up to "the truth". Each King Crimson was the only "King Crimson" for those in it. For members of several formations, perhaps there are several versions of uniquity. My own account is not inevitably more accurate than anyone else's, but it does have a broader perspective.

Thirty years later Peter is a successful lyricist. This gives me a vicarious pride. Peter is an intelligent, experienced and amusing man who sometimes conceals beneath flippancies the seriousness with which he takes his work. As someone who has been dealt the slings & arrows of the music industry's mixed fortunes, Peter balances his ongoing idealism with the easy temptation to fall into cynicism. A lesser man would have succumbed years ago. Peter has considered views & opinions which he is well-equipped to articulate, and which he does (e.g. "A Question Of Balance", linked from the Guestbook last September). He presents argued criticisms and commentaries on my own decisions and actions, in many of which he finds me lacking. Sometimes Peter contributes these comments in the DGM Guestbook, where he is welcome. "A Question Of Balance" accurately reflects the tone of our working relationship in 1970/1 with, 30 years after the event, less animosity.

I sensed a change in Peter's attitude towards me during a telephone call after the completion of "Poseidon" (c. July 1970) and our relationship subsequently deteriorated. I was unwilling to continue in a working atmosphere of growing hostility (as I experienced it). Historically, I ended our professional relationship by telephone in December 1971 when Crimson returned from a US tour. (This was the first occasion that I introduced myself as "Robert", formerly "Bob", a fact both Peter and I noticed).

Part of the practical difficulty between Peter & myself was structural: Crimson direction was dyadic. Peter comments: "I think we drove each other slightly mad". But if one of us was to leave Crimson, and one to stay, I had no doubt that the one to stay was the character who could play an instrument and write music. Peter may take a different view.

Peter was an exceptional lyric writer during our time together. His ambitions went further than this: to production ("Poseidon", "Lizard", "Islands", Roxy Music) cover design (the "ink blots" of "Islands"), and performance ("Still"). Peter's successes since then confirm his position as a recognised & successful lyricist. But in our work together within the Crimson context of 1970/1, I was unable to accept role-equivalence (Peter's expression is "co-owner") with someone, however talented, who was without a practical musical background or experience. In Crimson the ethos was, and continues to be, essentially that of the player. Even, the exceptional player. So, from my perspective of 1970/1, Peter's ambitions were unrealistic, perhaps misplaced. I accept Peter's position may well be very different.

This analysis was shared to some degree by EG Management (then a different concern to the one they became). They applied the lessons they (believed themselves to have) learnt from Peter's presence in Crimson to their new group, Roxy Music.They saw Eno's role in Roxy as comparable to Peter's in Crimson, and moved Eno, then sound mixer from front-of-house, to onstage with the band. This was intended to avert any jealousies, frustrated ambitions & aspirations EG believed might arise.

Thirty years ago my working relationship with Peter was a failure, albeit with successes. Given our different aims, I view that as largely inevitable. Peter says: "We both had visions which to some extent coincided". After a distance of 30 years I see two young men whose ambitions & aspirations coincided for a while, and then diverged. I forgive them both and wish them well.

V

How & what may we learn from the people we work with? Will they tell us what we need to know of ourselves? A hard lesson to learn, and accept, is this: our criticisms of others is one of the best means we have to self-knowledge.

The various comments in Mojo (December 1999) by Crim-members, former and present, have returned seemingly of their own volition for my consideration. One of the hard-won insights from life as the wretched creep & jerk that I am, of which any casual visitor to this Diary & Guestbook is by now well aware, is that we recognise in others what we know most deeply in ourselves. This recognition may / may not be "conscious".

For example, I am well equipped to detect failings in the human nature of others. So, what does this tell me of myself? If I see greed in another, I recognise this only because I experience greed in myself. If I rarely recognise a quality to be praised in others, what does this tell me of my own poverty of nature? Knowing this, if I wish to learn, I may set up watchers, trip wires, to alert me as I carelessly call out faults in others.

Expertise is precious, and in short supply as far as I am concerned. But one area of expertise I am able to claim is in the life & living of Robert Fripp. I have accompanied this irritating & exasperating person, and the creature he inhabits, for long enough to have developed some sense of who & what he is, his motivations, his strengths & weaknesses, where his star core essence lies, and the measure of his functional reliability. There are degrees of expertise, and I continue to learn, but I know few people who have deeper insights into Fripp than myself. These few people of my acquaintance are my friends: they tell me what I need to know, and when I need to know it, whether this information is comfortable or not. Their information carries no "side" (as is said in Dorset), and bears no self-interest. I apologise if this appears as self-interest overly developed: unless we cultivate and bear an impartial assessment of ourselves, of what it means to be the human being that we are, life is too hard. And likely to hold unpalatable surprises.

So, when another person (perhaps of my close professional acquaintance) presents a critique of their irascible & unlikeable former bandmate, I am (mostly):

Able to form an opinion as to the quality of their insight into others; Presented with a psychological profile of the commentator, who is revealing what they know most truly in themselves.

If anyone reading this might stop for a moment and exclaim - Hey! If Fripp's right that's really rather scary! We give ourselves away every time we utter an opinion! - I agree with you. Just look at the Guestbook. Or even more scary, Elephant Talk. It is scary that we present our deepest sense of ourselves on a (metaphorical) plate to public scrutiny whenever we open our mouths, or hit the QWERTY. For example, looking at this paragraph Fripp has just typed in, I am being told that the typist:

Is a very private person; Recognises the paradox in this; Accepts, engages and lives the paradox.

A dedicated private life is necessary if its complement, a dedicated public life, is to be effective. Privacy is not secrecy: it is a contained area of one's life that, if violated, undermines our capacity to effectually embrace our social responsibilities.

VI

So, back to Mojo.

John Bungey is to be complimented on his reportage: it strikes me as accurate and even-handed. To the extent that heat continues to reverberate in corridors off the court, perhaps the impartial observer might have a sense of what it was like to be present when the relationships were fresh and ongoing. I take it as given that the comments made to a reporter, in the knowledge they would be made public in a Crim-retrospective in Mojo, are available for discussion. These Diary comments in response are therefore made on the assumption that this is part of an available public debate, & I submit them in good spirit.

Looking back at these 30 years of angst & animosity, good cheer & amity, I am struck by the distress which in the main we served on each other. The history, much of it bad, some of it exceptional, most of it educational, and a little of it on the other side of The Zone, has nothing to do with the music. The music entered our world despite the interaction of these struggling characters rather than because of it.

My comments on other members are inevitably comments on myself. Nor are their comments on Fripp, I suggest, necessarily what they appear to be. Below I quote comments by Crim-persons, juxtaposing them with alternative readings. They may, or may, not be accurate; but they are thought provoking.

Ian McDonald: (on leaving in 1969) "Fripp was very upset and probably hasn't forgiven me to this day".
Alternative Reading: "Fripp was very upset and I probably haven't forgiven myself to this day".

Gordon Haskell: (on RF) "He was always very well-equipped to deal with the world".
AR: "I knew what it took to deal with the world".

Peter Giles: "He was a strange bastard".
AR: "I was a strange bastard".

Peter Sinfield: (To present a character description of RF) PS takes a book and reads from a contemporary description of Machiavelli, author of "The Prince".
AR: "My dealings with Robert were not straightforward".

Keith Tippett: "I thoroughly enjoyed my time with them. Robert would come in with the chords, we'd listen to them and usually got it in one or two takes".
AR: "I'm a nice guy and work quickly".

Robert Fripp: (on Peter Sinfield): "? there's a lot about Peter that I intensely dislike".
AR: "There's a lot about myself that I intensely dislike".

David Cross: Remembers Fripp as a generous musician, who was now happy to listen to other people's ideas.
AR: David Cross is a generous musician, and happy to listen to other people's ideas.

Tony Levin: "Time and time again I find that Robert has a unique and special vision of where the band should go".
AR: Time and time again Tony Levin has a unique and special vision.

Bill Bruford: "? I seem to have been a monumental irritant to (RF) over the years".
AR: "RF has been a monumental irritant to me over the years".

VII

One of my keenest memories from the files of Crimson personnel is of the evening I announced to the other members a piece of exceptional good fortune: I had agreed to buy my first home, a cottage near Wimborne. This was what I had always hoped to achieve for myself in terms of worldly aspiration (my background is in real estate, I come from Dorset & I'm Taurean). Polite interest and enthusiasm from most, and from one: a face which fell instantaneously into a fixed mask. The face was held tight and unmoving; nothing was said; it expressed what I understood as a form of rage.

This experience lead me to conclude: when you have good news, consider carefully before you tell those closest to you. In later years, I modified this to: in England, when you have good news, consider carefully before you tell those closest to you.

During the following days nothing was said on the topic to me but, so I was later told, more was said in the offices of management. In later years, I have read criticisms from this person of difficulties working with me and I have reflected on the question: how & why should / would my good fortune have triggered such resentment in them? How may I interpret this? How may I learn from this?

A point Tony Geballe noted while on a Guitar Craft course: often, you see a person's relationship to their father in how they relate to Robert.

A point noted by myself: often, in commentaries on close encounters, the encounter mirrors the commentator. To put this slightly differently, people tend to leave their "encounter with Fripp" with more of what they brought to it. Like, if they came with a flea in their ear, they leave with a flea in the other ear as well.

I have often been a hard critic of other members of Crimson. What does this tell me of myself? At least, that I recognise their many failings as my own. The failings that I have been unwilling to accept in them I recognise as failings I am unwilling to accept in myself. But young men may be forgiven many things, even where they are unacceptable and indefensible. In adult society, we are less prepared to accept those who are unaware (or unconcerned to discover) their automatic processes. This is part of an adult's continuing education. The choices and behaviour of an adolescent are not acceptable two or three decades later and, over time, our self-ignorance will result in the gradual withdrawing of decent society. The highest accolade, or credential, one can be awarded is the company of good people.

Today, I am more forgiving in others, and recognise that this accompanies a greater forgiving of Fripp. The poor man really does do his best, although he continues to fall flat on his face in full public gaze with a regularity which dismays me. But to surrender judgement on events of the past, and sacrifice our demands of the future, makes available a possible future of greater richness than we could believe. To put this slightly differently, letting go of the past makes the future present.

VIII

Working with others in a group (any kind of group) provides mixed joys. Michael Giles observed (1967) that there were 3 factors involved in keeping a (music) group together and, if any two of them were present and active, the group would stay together. Michael's 3 factors were these: music, friendship, and money.

The group may not articulate its common aim/s, but continue functioning despite mixed aims & mixed capacities on the basis of:

Music & friendship.
Music & money.
Friendship & money.

Where there is music, money & friendship, the group is likely to succeed. But if the success reaches a point where a manager & major label get involved, musical & social processes become mediated by commerce, then problems appear. Friendships fail, the music is undermined.

Another way of viewing group dynamics is by looking at the blind spots in each of the members, and watching collisions which result as combinations of blind spots coming into play. I refer interested visitors to better informed sources than myself: cf "chief feature" in "Work" litereature and "life script" in Transactional Analysis (eg Claude Steiner). Briefly, a blind spot is this: it is a fundamental, basic, structural strategy which informs & directs all of our behaviour. In my view, it is usually developed as a "survival" strategy in childhood but, as an adult, is an inappropriate injunction or command. Blind spot is morally neutral, not necessarily "bad" or "good", although its effects can be dustructive and tends to undermine everything we do. The main functional characteristic is this: because blind spot's injunction is so much part of what we are, we are too close to see it. Like, an eye trying to see the eyeball. At Sherborne House Mr. Bennett would sometimes tell students their chief features. Other times, not.

If we watch & listen closely, noticing our interactions with others & why we "choose" courses of action, in time we discover a recurrent pattern/s. Sometimes, we wonder why life continues to deal us the same problem, time after time. A clue: keep looking at why this might be. When Dusty Rhodes was on tour with Peter Gabriel in the Spring of 1977, he had 3 days off in Kansas City, mostly spent in a health club agonizing over just such a recurrent pattern. Edging closer and closer, I have known my Chief Feature for now over 16 years; the power of this simple principle continues to amaze me.

Blind spot seems to act to protect itself from discovery, and may be surrounded by other reinforcing strategies which hide it from sight. But in time, and perhaps with real friends to comment, we discover our blind spot. This can typically be expressed in a simple sentence; perhaps as a statement of conduct or belief, perhaps as an imperative. Discovery is one thing; becoming free of its hold is another.

For example, here are blind spots from several KC members over the years:

I want to have another go.
I won't commit myself.
I'll take as much as I can for myself.
I'm the centre of attention.

This doesn't mean that any of these guys are creeps, or bad people. It simply suggests that they will continue to trip over an invisible obstacle, and some of them will wonder why.

"I'm the centre of attention" is an interesting one. Another way of expressing this is: "It's all about me". This player will always be placing themselves in full view, or rather, the fullest view possible. Why? Because:

The audience is here to see & hear me.
The other guys in the band are here to provide a context for me to be seen and heard.

The strategy will appear in everything the player plays, thinks & does. Licks & fills will present the impression that this person is in charge, and directing the action. Form will be stretched to allow more attention to be given to this player's part. When they mix a record, they'll be foregrounded in the stereo. Why? Because they're the centre of attention. It's all about them.

If one approaches this blind strategy-in-action with the comment "you're playing too much", this is interpreted as: "you want some of the attention which is properly being given to me". Not, the formal demands of the music require more space, less playing, and (the piece you are showboating on) needs abbreviation.

The overall content of an album will be determined by an (unspoken) economy of attention exchanges, rather than the form, flow & sequence of the music. Like, "I'll let you attract attention for some of the album, in exchange for me getting attention on the rest of it." The (kind of) reasoning behind this is: "I know you want attention, because I want attention; but for me it's a natural right and it means you taking some from me, which after all is mine. But I'll agree to you having some attention in exchange for me having what I consider sufficient".

The actual quote from this player to me (and recorded in my Journal years ago) was this: "All I want is an album a year with 3 pieces on it". This is not a recipe for creative group endeavour.

The reasonable & skeptical reader looks up from their screen: "How can Fripp know this, the prat!". And, quite rightly, how can any of us know another person? How is it possible to enter th e experiencing of another? I relate the following, one of the several powerful & instructive experiences throughout my life which continue to inform it; and all of which added together would possibly not have the clock duration of 5 seconds.

While playing in the studio, I suddenly found myself looking out from this player's eyes, seeing their hands in motion, seeing themselves as the centre & directing force of the action, experiencing - "it's all about me". And then back into Fripp. The experience was quietly terrifying, that my sense of this player was accurate. They really did know that it was all about them.

I emphasise: this didn't / doesn't make them a creep. The person is a good guy & a better player than I am. They just have a blind spot.

IX

Another informative approach, following on from this, is to address the question:

What are the musical contributions which each individual made to King Crimson?

This is an interesting question, and probably impossible to answer. Each of the members might make a list of the notes, phrases, specific suggestions, alteration to & arrangements of suggestions from others, contribution of personal vocabulary, and so on. But King Crimson music is not a list of musical parts, even its complete repertoire. A more revealing approach might be this:

In everything played / written by Crimson members outside Crimson, how much of King Crimson is present there?

Another version of this approach is to assume: the work each individual has done outside Crimson is the work / playing which they really wanted & preferred to do, for & of themself. Then, the distance between "their" work & their work in Crimson, is what comes from King Crimson. Putting it differently:

Their work in Crimson was like that, because King Crimson made it possible.

This is an opposite perspective to analyzing the contributions made by members ot Crimson, and adding them up to give the total: "King Crimson". This approach suggests that King Crimson played the players; the music is greater than the individual contributions of each of its members; the music is more than the sum of the parts. It's not so much what these guys gave to KC but what KC enabled these guys to contribute.

Hard to put that across, but it's the closest I can get.

X

And King Crimson is not only the music.

Nor is Fripp "the bandleader". I do not confuse myself with King Crimson. This is about the only subject Ian Wallace & I disagreed on last evening. "You are King Crimson" said Ian. Not. Not.

"Identification" is awful: a prison door to personal freedom. When, in 1974, I attempted to pass the line of descent to Ian McDonald (cf various recent commentaries on this) a weight lifted: I was able to let go of King Crimson. My life began again. When responsibility for Crimson returned, it was not the same.

King Crimson is something apart from us all. Former members legitimately ask for recognition & acknowledgement of their work & contributions, and I welcome their commentaries & input. But the personal histories of all of us in Crimson is not the history of King Crimson. All the individual histories, given goodwill, are equally true; but they are not the truth.

The spirit of Crimson is elusive, impossible to pin down, and recognizable. It cannot be claimed by any of us as our own. Did all of us create King Crimson? In one sense, yes. But it may be more correct to say that King Crimson brought us all together, and succeeded despite our efforts rather than because of them. When I listen to classic Crim, it continues to take my breath away. I hear no individuals: I hear King Crimson.

XI

Crimson is a public school, and a hard one.

At the age of 53 I have many scars from living the lives of, at least two, busy men. If I chose to keep those scars active, as open wounds, this is my choice & responsibility. Those who have given me offence, whether real or imagined, are forgiven. Forgive me if this appears an arrogance. Any hurt, or "errors" directed towards me, which I keep active are now my own responsibility.

Forgiving is a decision we take. This decision is fundamentally pragmatic, although simultaneously a high ideal. Once the decision is taken, help appears (help was always present, but we were closed to it). Once forgiveness is undertaken, it is practised in stages. To love our enemies may be a stage too far; but for those who aspire to this supreme Christian injunction, forgiveness is within our reach. It is a necessary ecology of the spiritual life, however we may understand that; perhaps, a life in which we are individuals only to the degree that we are each other. Not so much the Chinese "big me", more the "Great I".

You are me, and I am thee; and we are both moving towards our death.

13.44

The music playing as an accompaniment to this QWERTYing is Erkan Ogur's "bir omurlukmisafir". Erkan is a Turkish fretless acoustic guitarist. Pat Lottapasta gave me this yesterday to take a listen.

"The Clock Of The Long Now" completed, I have begun Richard E. Rubinstein's "When Jesus Became God: The Epic Fight over Christ's Divinity in the Last Days of Rome" (Harcourt Brace 1999).

Ken has come & gone, to return again from the studio in town bringing more equipment for Adrian to record his final vocal - on "Oyster Soup".

14.37
E-mails off to Hugh at DGM & Ian Wallace to link them up for Ian's "Notes From The Drum Stool" on the Summit Studios Club release.

Guestbook posters suggest from time to time what they'd like on their Club sleeve notes, perhaps contemporary commentary, historic reminiscences & diaries from all the members. Please bear in mind that the cover-art budget for Club releases doesn't allow for much more than a piece of printed card. There has also been negative feedback for this Diary, edited for Club releases: it doesn't relate to the period in question, it's available online, simple non-interest, simple antipathy. I have no difficulty with this: it makes my busy life easier not to have this concern.

Some Crim members have complained about the cost of artwork for larger releases, where a lot of work and effort goes into, eg, the scrapbooks. I sympathise with their concerns and take this into account.

Re: recent posts on the Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band in the Guestbook - Ian Wallace joined Crimson from Neil Innes' group; Roger Ruskin Spear supported Crimson on tour in the UK (1971); Viv (actually Vic) Stanshall asked me to help him make an album (1971/2 Speakeasy, London); and the Bonzos were one of the Giles' brothers favouratist groups when I met them.

17.12
Pat has just called from the studio: "Fractured" won't be ready for a through-listen until midnight or 02.00 So, go in tomorrow. Meanwhile, Adrian is whooping it up on "Oyster Soup" next door with Ken in the control room.

21.49
A seasonal snuffle has fallen upon my normal good health. Nothing terrible, but an irritation.

Ken and Adrian worked through to around 20.00. On my side of the studio wall I've been addressing particular finger combinations which feature in the terror suffering terror misery difficult parts of the new record. Every now and then a mouse emerges from beneath the shelf of rhinoceros artifacts and runs under the table. Sooner or later it returns.

As an accompaniment for my late QWERTYing I'm listening to Pat's assembly of the improvs from the last Double Trio rehearsals, in Nashville during the first week of May 1997 (the November 1997 rehearsals were ProjeKct Two). These will very likely become a Club release this year.