Any long term visitor to this website will know that DGMLive has a well established practice - one established by the scrapbook accompanying 1976‘s, The Young Person’s Guide To King Crimson - of highlighting both good and bad reviews of the band. Taking the rough with the smooth is all part of the rich tapestry of a band on tour; something King Crimson has been doing for several decades now.
Christian Von Eggers Doering commented via Facebook on the differences between Andrew Keeling’s review of Salford with that of The Guardian’s piece on the band in Hackney, which he mistakenly attributes to the Financial Times: “Quite a contrast when someone who has an understanding of music and a familiarity with KC writes about this tour -- as opposed to the scrivener sent by the FT, who blythely exposed his lack of both."
This comment prompted Robert Fripp to offer his perspective on the matter.
Yes, I agree with the respected writer (and musician) Mr. Doering: it is a joy to be reviewed by someone who engages with music, musicians and performance with magnaminity, generosity, goodwill - and in Dr. Keeling's case, formidable analytical chops.
However, i believe that Mr. Doering is confusing Ludovic Hunter-Tilney of The FT (a writer for whom i have consderable respect) with Mr. Gittings who reviewed for The Guardian. Both were at Hackney Empire.
The most informative part of Mr. Gittings piece lay in the online comments below the piece; which reviewed both the reviewer (unfavourably in the main) and King Crimson (favourably in the main). Vic Garbarini, arguably the finest US music editor of his generation and one of the very few (Mr. Doering is another) who can articulate the mechanics of the creative process, is one of the commentators. Mr. Garbarini channels Rory O'Flute, a famous contributor to the International Times who gave KC its nickname of Crimso in 1969, and writes: "The Return of quintessential 70's Brit-Crit-snark, I wos gettin' right sick o' all them old scribblers recently writing about how dey was all wrong about da Crims back in the day, and wot a great band they now knows dey are and was n' all. Finally, a lad named Ian, willing to be, no, not just a git, but a whole basket o' Gittins".
The reviews of this tour, both in the nationals, online diarising, Facebook, and DGM Guestbooking, have been overwhelmingly positive. Of those I have seen perhaps 95-98% of the comments are almost effusive (and sometimes even effusive). Personal reports and comments, from both innocents who have handed over their hard-earned pay and Persons Of Authority And Recognised Accomplishment And Perhaps Even Very Famous, have been exceptional. And this for a music form ("the most despised since blackface") which until recently could not have its name spoken, particularly in England, let alone played in public.
I have sympathy with the professional writer, seeking to earn a living in difficult and unsupportive times while engaging with creative writing. The Guardian review of KC at the Hackney Empire (as was also The FT) is not an example of honourable application to either professional or creative work. To me, its most striking feature is a parsimony of the spirit. A little too much five-against-one, out of tune, out of time, lazy, no affective engagement, condescending, at least partly pre-recorded, it does no justice to the subject nominally under review, nor to the reviewer, nor to a national which sees itself as part of the quality press. If this is the best writer The Guardian can get for the job, time for tuning-up in the editorial department. This King Crimson is a celebration, characterized by much generosity from audience and between the players. It is a joyful undertaking. The music is fresh, considered, exciting, a lot of fun, and well-played. King Crimson is at play – everyone welcome! But for this party, you need to bring more than a limp dick.
Christian Von Eggers Doering commented via Facebook on the differences between Andrew Keeling’s review of Salford with that of The Guardian’s piece on the band in Hackney, which he mistakenly attributes to the Financial Times: “Quite a contrast when someone who has an understanding of music and a familiarity with KC writes about this tour -- as opposed to the scrivener sent by the FT, who blythely exposed his lack of both."
This comment prompted Robert Fripp to offer his perspective on the matter.
Yes, I agree with the respected writer (and musician) Mr. Doering: it is a joy to be reviewed by someone who engages with music, musicians and performance with magnaminity, generosity, goodwill - and in Dr. Keeling's case, formidable analytical chops.
However, i believe that Mr. Doering is confusing Ludovic Hunter-Tilney of The FT (a writer for whom i have consderable respect) with Mr. Gittings who reviewed for The Guardian. Both were at Hackney Empire.
The most informative part of Mr. Gittings piece lay in the online comments below the piece; which reviewed both the reviewer (unfavourably in the main) and King Crimson (favourably in the main). Vic Garbarini, arguably the finest US music editor of his generation and one of the very few (Mr. Doering is another) who can articulate the mechanics of the creative process, is one of the commentators. Mr. Garbarini channels Rory O'Flute, a famous contributor to the International Times who gave KC its nickname of Crimso in 1969, and writes: "The Return of quintessential 70's Brit-Crit-snark, I wos gettin' right sick o' all them old scribblers recently writing about how dey was all wrong about da Crims back in the day, and wot a great band they now knows dey are and was n' all. Finally, a lad named Ian, willing to be, no, not just a git, but a whole basket o' Gittins".
The reviews of this tour, both in the nationals, online diarising, Facebook, and DGM Guestbooking, have been overwhelmingly positive. Of those I have seen perhaps 95-98% of the comments are almost effusive (and sometimes even effusive). Personal reports and comments, from both innocents who have handed over their hard-earned pay and Persons Of Authority And Recognised Accomplishment And Perhaps Even Very Famous, have been exceptional. And this for a music form ("the most despised since blackface") which until recently could not have its name spoken, particularly in England, let alone played in public.
I have sympathy with the professional writer, seeking to earn a living in difficult and unsupportive times while engaging with creative writing. The Guardian review of KC at the Hackney Empire (as was also The FT) is not an example of honourable application to either professional or creative work. To me, its most striking feature is a parsimony of the spirit. A little too much five-against-one, out of tune, out of time, lazy, no affective engagement, condescending, at least partly pre-recorded, it does no justice to the subject nominally under review, nor to the reviewer, nor to a national which sees itself as part of the quality press. If this is the best writer The Guardian can get for the job, time for tuning-up in the editorial department. This King Crimson is a celebration, characterized by much generosity from audience and between the players. It is a joyful undertaking. The music is fresh, considered, exciting, a lot of fun, and well-played. King Crimson is at play – everyone welcome! But for this party, you need to bring more than a limp dick.
