Robert Fripp in dispute with the David Bowie Estate

I dont have to read the article. SRVs manager and his girlfriend/wife were making "more money" demands. Its no secret.

 

Well that’s up to you but SRV made it very clear it wasn’t about the money but the chance to promote his album on the tour. You can choose to believe what you want but SRV was adamant over the years that it was never about the money but a promise that was made to allow him to perform as an opening act at select shows to promote his own album. It was a compromise designed to allow him to both play with Bowie and to promote his album and perform with his band which he wanted to do.

I don’t know who you heard the story from about SRV but always consider the source and their own point of view they are trying to promote their own agenda.

If you were hearing Bowie’s side of things I’m sure that’s what they would say. I don’t think it would be any skin off of SRV’s nose at the time if it was about money—there would be no reason for him to hide it. Rumors about why someone did this or that over the years doesn’t replace the first hand reportingof someone involved like SRV.

 

I recall Fripp was unhappy that Bruford (and Wetton) had been collecting royalties for the song Red. Another piece in the Robert Fripp "who gets credit for what" story

 

...but was it for writing or performance? Two different things entirely.

 

Smiley face was meant to indicate that I'm not arguing any specific position, just making an observation.

 

That is pretty funny. Red (the album) was ridiculed by some critics when it came out, and Fripp later described himself as having some serious psychological issues at the time that they made Red, and that he agreed to whatever Bill Bruford wanted to do.

 

This was my understanding of how that whole thing went down as well. Better for everyone involved that this blew up.

D.D.

 

There seems to be a rush to judgement in some of the posts in this thread. In the absence of factual information about the dispute, which explanation seems more rational?

1. Fripp has suddenly decided to make a opportunistic claim for more money over and above whatever he was paid for the original sessions and/or has received in royalties?

2. The Bowie Estate instigated a change in the distribution of Featured Performer royalties, which negatively impacts a previous arrangement or contract that Fripp had or believed he had?

Separately, I understood that Fripp and Belew had settled any differences that existed between them, and Belew is currently back in the fold as an "inactive" member of KC.

 

Bruford’s book has a totally different interpretation of that period.

At least with the title track, he thought Fripp and Wetton were turning Crimson into a heavy metal band. They assured him it was going to be uniquely Crimson in the end and he came around on it, but at least through Bruford’s eyes, I hardly think that era was about him controlling things.

 

Streaming revenues.

 

Just as an informational note - if you ever see me using a smiley face, or indeed any emoji, consider that my way of communicating that I have been taken prisoner, all my communications are being monitored, and I need rescuing. Thank you.

 

Or Fripp & Bowie agreed on a payment level, then following Bowie's death his estate reduced that payment, then Fripp tried to get it back to what it was, estate refused, Fripp has no other course of action than to file a claim. IF that's what happened, Fripp is just trying to get what has been his all along.

 

Smiley notwithstanding, exactly how do you "recall" that Fripp was unhappy?

Reading various bandmembers' accounts over the years, it's reasonable to assess that any King Crimson album is the result of arguing and rejection and compromise. Lucky us.

This may be not be perfectly accurate, but published credits over a half century suggest that any given Crim splits revenue equally. In return, all bandmembers are expected to contribute creatively. (That may have been amended as of 2014, dunno? Does Mel Collins actually compose anything?)

Anyway, back to Bowie...

I'll betcha the root cause of the latest drama is Really Boring. Namely estate attorneys and corporate attorneys and other ambulance chasers redefining who-gets-what, after the fact.

I know this is a Dump-On-Fripp Thread – hey, I really feel bad that he didn't sign you guys' little tchotchkes or ask you to join the band – but the likely culprit(s) are oily attorneys who like to re-org revenue.

Fripp's publicizing it was a pretty dumb move nonetheless.

 

I "recall" from reading pages 195 & 196 of "In the Court of King Crimson" by Sid Smith. Fripp has made mention of it in his online diary in the past as well.

And just for Chris DeVoe

 

On the basis of this, he may well still be getting fees, it’s just that PPL are sending them to the wrong person!

 

I have Bruford's book and read it, but several years ago - need to revisit that. Red is a favorite.

 

You're still begging a rush to judgement. We don't know. We don't know what was being paid before, if and when that changed, and what effect it had on associated artists. If contracts exist, then we'd all expect them to be honored. If Fripp was paid previously, then there would have to be some rationale to a change, whether we agree with it or not.

Perhaps we'll get more details, perhaps it'll all be settled and just go away. Who knows. I'd not lay the blame at anyone's feet, except KC at the moment, based on the fact that they decided to go public as they did. That's just childish, imo. We don't know anywhere near enough to lay the blame for this at Bowie's estate. We can't blame Parlophone just because they happen to have the license to sell Bowie material at the point of his passing. You have to ask yourself, would it really matter to Parlophone if Fripp was getting a $1 for every copy of Heroes sold? Wouldn't the money simply come out of the entire amount made, and be covered by contracts anyway?

In summary - this board is fastidious when it comes to pressings, masterings, cover art, historic events etc. But when it comes to something like this, and it happens a lot in Bowie threads for some reason, speculation and personal opinion gets substituted for fact. Insults pop up. It's poor form, and an anomaly on the board. We'd be better off doing away with Pantomime villains.

 

You’re wrong. SRV asked for his band to play as a pre-show and be super paid both as a pre-show and as a lead guitarist on Bowie show

 

Ahhh, so THAT'S why it's their best album. Makes sense...

 

Welcome to Fripp's world. If you read any of his diaries or blogs, he's always got a complaint -- often disguised as some philosophical musing, targeted at the music industry.


.....ok, to be fair, some of his complaints (or musings, if you will) do make sense, but c'mon man. It's an endless harangue.

 

Revenue!

 

I guess Fripp is hurting for some cash. Is he getting divorced?

 

Maybe for all we know, they've been married for 30 years. Anything is possible, all we can do is speculate.

 

I was attempting to summarize previous comments in two broad and hypothetical scenarios, and asked which seems more likely. It was an effort to invite discussion, not judgement.

As for Fripp's rationale in going public, I can't say. Maybe this has been dragging on and he is fed up. Like XTC and Virgin, and countless other examples where artists have publicized legal difficulties in an attempt to move them forward - or just out of frustration.

 

My policy is (a) decide and negotiate what's acceptable to you prior to doing the work, (b) sign a contract specifying (a) before you do the work, and (c) don't forget to take into consideration possible future uses--if you want to exclude certain things without additional future negotiation at the very least, make sure this is specified in the contract.

Have I signed contracts that I regretted later? Yes. But it's my fault for not being wise enough and not negotiating certain things when I did the work. I've never sued anyone down the line unless it was for breach of a contract that we'd already signed.