Posted 12:11 PM by Dave Allen
Apparently, Evan Silverman's blog entry about The Rosenbergs status with DGM
resulted in a great deal of criticism of the label, and a dialogue of sorts
between the two sides ensued.

Here follows The Rosenbergs' ultimate public apology to DGM, as well as
responses to Evan's diary entry from David Singleton and Robert Fripp,
principals of DGM, illustrative of the typical set of expectations and
responsibilities that define the artist/label relationship, whatever the
combination of good intentions, admirable ethics, and not-so-traditional
business model might be.

http://www.krimson-news.com/

Public Apology From The Rosenbergs
Mr. Crimson at 12:00:00 AM - KCNN Feedback (0)

To whom it may concern, it has come to our attention that Evan's diary entry
a few weeks ago has brought a lot of negative criticism on the folks at DGM.
First of all, Evan's opinions in his diary are his and his alone and do NOT
reflect anyone else's in the band. Second, Unfortunately, Evan, after a
particularly difficult day being hassled by our creditors, stepped outside
the lines of not only business but friendship and said some things that he
now sincerely regrets. To a man, each one of us are, and will always be,
extremely grateful to what Robert and David and the staff at DGM have done
for us, and getting a few hundred dollars screwed up in transfering channels
does not mean that our 2-plus year relationship with them is ruined---These
setbacks, along with the credit situation we now face, are not the fault of
DGM or anyone else involved with us, but one of the many consequences we
knew we'd face trying to go against the major record label system. We as a
band, including the infamous Evan, would like to issue a public apology to
Robert and everyone else at DGM as they have received some pretty nasty
emails over the last couple of days accusing them of "Screwing us over"-
nothing could be further from the truth. Robert's company was built on
honesty, integrity, and respect for the artists and those are extremely rare
traits in the music business- They are the only company in the industry we
would've gone into business with on just a handshake. Hopefully, the folks
that were willing to jump on the negative bandwagon, and we appreciate their
concern and support, will read this, too, and realize that when things go
wrong and people get frustrated, they say things they don't mean. I'm sure
Evan wishes he could take it back. We all hold DGM in the highest regard and
hope they do the same for us and wish them all the best in whatever the
future holds. I'm sure it will be good.

Sincerely,

David, Joe, Joe, and Evan (The Rosenbergs) :)

http://www.krimson-news.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?topic=61&forum=9&start=15

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
And here is David Singleton's public response to Evan Silverman's recent
public diary posting... Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Open letter to a disgruntled artist.

Dear Evan,

I was sorry to read in a recent diary posting that you are «fucked». I am
also concerned that you wrote «I wish they (DGM) didn't leave us dry,
throwing aside the contract and going against their word». This is quite
simply untrue and grossly inaccurate. It may be that you do not speak on
behalf of the other band members, but as your words have been widely
reported, it might be useful for me to clearly describe the details of DGM's
relationship with the Rosenbergs.

It is well documented that the Rosenbergs wished to own their musical rights
and control their own career. Aspirations which DGM fully supports. We have
always believed that such freedom is really only possible in a situation
where the artist «pays their own tab». As the Rosenbergs were initially
unable to pay their own way, Robert and I undertook to loan the band up to
$150,000, with interest payable in the normal way, so that the band could
«self finance». DGM became the Rosenbergs management company, on a standard
20% management commission.

The financial history of our relationship with the Rosenbergs has been
roughly as follows :

The studio gets paid : $60,000.00
The producer $10,000.00
The mastering engineer $4,616.29
The graphics company $1,404.00
The video maker $5,000.00
The CD manufacturer $26,321.93
Your lawyer $10,000.00
The band's per diems and expenses $29,500.00
Travel and delivery expenses $2,587.84
The bank (interest) $16,514.25
The publicists and PR $28,904.49
We buy a van for the band to use $10,631.00

In fact virtually everyone gets paid, except Robert and David, who take out
loans against their houses to pay the bills - to pay your bills. I have no
complaint with any of this. This is what we undertook to do, and we were
happy to have supported you. I have never regretted the decision until
reading your posting, which makes me wonder if our goodwill was misplaced.

To deal directly with the issues you raise :

DGM «promises us X amount of money for three records».

This is untrue. We offered to loan you a rolling $150,000 ie. if it was
repaid after the first album, we would extend the same loan for a second
album. I suggest you read the inconsistencies in your own posting more
closely. You acknowledge that DGM «gave us more money than promised», while
at the same time suggesting that we are somehow in breach of contract, and
moaning that we have not lent you even more money. Perhaps you feel that the
figure of $150,000 is not significant to us, in which case I should point
out that the loan I have taken against my house on behalf of the Rosenbergs
is larger than my entire earnings last year. That is a measure of the
commitment that you have received.

You imply that Robert and I are in some way responsible for your credit card
debts and rehearsal room costs. I fail to understand why you feel that I
should be responsible for your personal finances. I too have credit card
debts, but do not expect someone else to pay them on my behalf. Far from
«paying your own tab», you clearly expected Robert and David to pay it for
you indefinitely. Your comment that it somehow shocked you when «we found
out that we'd be responsible for that money» is most revealing. The rest of
the world is responsible for their own finances, why should the Rosenbergs
be uniquely privileged?

You say that your «business manager knows it's bullshit».

I value Angus's opinion. He is the only other person who has yet to get paid
by the Rosenbergs. He has certainly never told me anything of the kind, and
if he believed this, I am sure he would have said so. I do know that he
recently asked if we were able to loan an additional $3,000 to prop up your
personal company - and we declined. It is your personal company, for which
the band members are responsible. It is for the four of you to earn the
money to sustain it. Or not. Robert and I do not ask you for loans to
sustain DGM.

4. «Our manager works at DGM, so he's in a sticky situation as it is»

This is among the more bizarre comments in your posting. Your manager works
at DGM. DGM is your management company. Where else would you expect him to
work? How is his situation sticky?

5. «Things like using connections to get us on a tour was impossible»

We have always made it very clear to all our artists that DGM is not in the
business of creating a market for music. This must be the work of the music
and the artist. In your case, we spent nearly $5 per CD in advertising and
promotion. A spend which means that we have, in effect, lost money for every
CD sold. Even now, the CDs are being returned unsold by the shops. A
privilege for which Robert and I will continue to pay.

Finally :

«There was very little positive to come out of our relationship with DGM»

This is clearly your view, and I have no desire to persuade you otherwise.
But let us examine our relative positions:

The band have been able to make a record, and to tour. They have paid
themselves a salary, albeit a small one, far in excess of any income that was
derived from their music. Their ability to do this has been funded entirely
by DGM. They own the rights in their recording, and their video, are
contractually free, and control their own career.

By contrast, David and Robert have given the use of all our staff, and a
large amount of our personal time and creative energy over the last few
years. We have taken out loans, on behalf of the band in excess of $150,000,
on which we continue to pay the interest of over $1,000 a month - expenses
which, according to the contract, the band should reimburse. We have yet to
receive any such payments from the Rosenbergs (and nor, in truth, have we
asked for any, as we know the band have no money). Our reward for this work
is to see a band member tarnish the name of the company with inaccuracies
and misrepresentations.

For the future, our relationship is clearly at an end. The trust and mutual
respect that is necessary has broken down. DGM has moved on. We now accept
that much of the music that we wished to help bring into the world is
prejudiced because the artists are not willing to do the work and take the
responsibility that is necessary to «pay their own tab». Robert and David
are no longer willing to pay the tab on their behalf. Robert himself is
still working to repay the large loan that established DGM in its early
years, which enabled DGM to support the work of the Rosenbergs.

The Rosenbergs also will move on. Robert and I continue to believe in the
ultimate success of the band's creative drive, as much as ever. We are not
in the business of taking artists to court in order to get repayment of
outstanding debts. Consider it as a loan from a member of your family. It is
for you to decide how and when you intend to repay such a loan.

Best wishes,


David Singleton.

[ This Message was edited by: DanKirkd on 2002-04-09 01:48 ]


Posted: 2002-04-09 01:33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
I have received the following from Robert Fripp for posting here and
elsewhere... Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

The Future Of The Past


(from Robert Fripp's Journal).

Saturday 6th. April, 2002; 08.52

Bredonborough, Worcestershire.

The sun is shining, the sky is blue & the temperature brisk.

The world is mad, if television news is any guide to the world. The news
according to English tabloids suggests, the world is madder than that. Any
reasonable person would despair. But hope is unreasonable and love is
greater than that. And love is greater than that.

My reflections of this sunny English morning are directed towards DGM's
larger present moment: its beginning, development, present condition & how
it may best address its future.

The beginning and development: DGM began as an ethical company &
mysteriously became a not-for-profit corporation.

The present condition: David Singleton & myself are no longer prepared to
fill the gap between the two, to continue as sponsors of the NFP. This
filling-of-the-gap consists of:

1. David is overworked & underpaid, at less than the manager of our Los
Angeles office & at 20% of the salary he was offered to run a comparable
firm.

2. Robert is overworked and unpaid, while maintaining a large company debt.

So, if David is overworked & underpaid, and I am not paid at all, DGM is
much as it always was. What has changed is that David & Robert are no longer
prepared to hold together what is possible & what is actual by underwriting
& subsidising the operations of DGM with our time, energies & borrowed
money.

No blame: DGM is a conviction company, not a career move (and occasionally
staff found the gap too wide). But negotiating the critical space between
the possible & the actual requires that we recognise degrees of necessity.

DGM became unmanageable. Unless David & I are to put most of our creative
energies into maintaining the company and its structure, it will collapse
sometime during 2002. We are not prepared to create musical product to
support the structure. Any structure, inevitably, seeks to define itself as
the raison d'etre and act accordingly. Rather, we have chosen to honour the
company's founding spirit, unfix the structure, re-introduce the Mobility
into DGm, and move on.

In making this choice, in taking this decision, we acknowledge that DGM has
already moved on. Sufficient notices of this intent have been posted &
available for some time.

DGM is not in bankruptcy, not about to collapse, not in financial trouble.
We continue to have the same problems with cash-flow that we have always
had. In that respect, nothing has changed.

We have problems with cash-flow because the records we release don't sell in
large quantities, certainly not enough to support the artists as
professional players. To put this slightly differently, our artists don't
sell enough of their records to support the company. But, why should the
artists sell their records? Shouldn't DGM sell their records?

DGM makes records available that might not otherwise enter the world, or
under conditions that would prejudice the music and/or its creators; and
where possible we connect the audience to that music. It was never the remit
of DGM to become a promotional structure dedicated to marketing & promoting
artists and their work.

So, here is a key point: DGM was created as an artist-friendly &
music-driven new-model record company which inherited the baggage,
expectations & assumptions of an old-model, conventional record company:
finance, marketing & promotion. DGM carried the negative weight of this
expectation without the corresponding total ownership & exploitation of the
artist and all their works. The conventional presumption in favour of the
record company was reversed: the main risks were carried by DGM but without
the corresponding property ownership & recoupment strategies. Much of this
is attributable to:

the presence of an artist within the flat hierarchy of the company during
its early days;

that the company was founded in response to injustice.

DGM staff are well aware of old-model exploitation & the
almost-impossibility of earning a living from music. Accordingly, they have
sometimes made artist-supportive judgement calls that were easily explicable
but, from a financial viewpoint, indefensible.

We can do whatever we want, providing we pick up the bill. Historically, the
bill has passed primarily to David & Robert. No blame: artist-friendly is
part of the company's culture. But DGM came too close to being what The
Vicar somewhat dismissively calls «The Charity».

DGM began in a music-industry world very different to the industry of today.
What appeared mad & unsustainable to us in 1992 is increasingly acknowledged
in the mainstream media of 2002 as being mad & unsustainable.

Building a new-model record company during the recession & financial turmoil
of the early 1990s was like something like this:

crossing a bridge between two utterly different ways of doing things;
building the bridge while crossing it;

Endless Grief firing bullets from behind & chopping the supports;

future prospects on the other side hiding;

faith in the inexpressible benevolence of the creative impulse.

While making the crossing, we traveled with as many family members as we
were able. In 2002 we are on the other side of that particular Great Divide.
Some of our family fell away & some of our family are still with us; but it
is no longer our responsibility to hold up an umbrella for them.

A key failing of David & myself throughout DGM's history has been to support
a member of the Team when wiser counsel would allow them to stand on their
own feet, even where this included falling over. This failing is:

partly the fault of trying to be helpful;

partly the arrogance that accompanies rescue attempts;

partly feeling responsibility for the repercussions of our initiatives.

It became very apparent in mid-1999 that a new new-model was & that
DGM-as-constructed was not that model. The creation of Bootleg TV was driven
by David's vision of an appropriate business & distribution structure to
match our original aims given the rapid changes in the industry, those
changes primarily driven by technology. An efficient structure to address
DGM music distribution & business would have freed David & Robert to return
their greater attention to music, production mastering & creative projects.

Bootleg TV raised $4 million and closed, along with many other companies in
the high-tech downturn, without being able to meet its promise. The need for
that model continues & the vision of that model persists. Someone,
somewhere, is addressing it at this moment. When broadband comes to life, a
version of this model will take off. Bootleg TV is worthy of a separate
history, along with the history of Endless Grief, as a snapshot of one
period of social, cultural & economic history.

DGM has done some things well, some things not well.

1. DGM Was A Very Bad Conventional Record Company: Failure.

i) DGM was a very bad conventional record company, but DGM was not set up to
be a conventional record company. A Conventional Record Company:

a) provides artists with a publicity & promotion machine;

b) provides (relatively) large amounts of money (much of which doesn't
actually reach the artist);

c) and in return for the risk and investment owns the artist/s and nearly
everything connected to them, in totality.

This is one approach, and it continues to have effect.

ii) Artists have tended to expect of DGM that it function as an old-model
company - quasi-managerial and providing promotion, distribution &
financing - while enjoying the benefits of DGM as a new-model record
company: artist profit-sharing, non-exploitation, non-ownership, non-risk.

iii) DGM was useless at establishing the names and careers of artists who
were not already well-established.

iv) One artist has expressed disappointment that their records were not
better distribution. Distribution was not, and is not, a difficulty for DGM.

DGM can put its records on display in nearly every record shop on most of
the main streets in the Western world. All this entails is paying for the
display, paying for the pressing, paying to ship the record to the store,
paying for the record to be shipped back again when no-one has bought it,
and paying to store the returned CDs.

The question is: why should DGM pay for this when there is no reasonable
chance of recovering & recouping the cost? Alternatively, how much does the
artist consider fair that DGM should lose on making their records available?
We have no wide catalogue of successful artists to support the relatively
less successful on the label. Who pays for the distribution?

DGM makes available records that otherwise probably would not have been made
available. If this is not acceptable to the artist, then better that we all
move on. This particular artist moves on owning two albums, and DGM moves on
with the accumulated debt of making those two albums available.

v) In his diary, now at Krimson News, Evan of The Rosenbergs has expressed
dissatisfaction with DGM's financial dealings. If Evan would like to «spill
the beans» on DGM dealings, as he puts it, he has my encouragement and
support.

Evan's comments are easily understandable & readily forgivable. They are
also injudicious, misleading & a little unfair. At the end of our business
relationship The Rosenbergs will own their record & DGM will be owning the
$150,000 Rosenbergs' debt.

The defining moment for me was lunchtime on Thursday 28th. March, 2002 at
DGM HQ near Salisbury, Wiltshire. David & I were meeting to discuss the
current & arising situations presently underway. Adrian Molloy, The
Rosenbergs' manager that DGM employed & whose office is now at HQ, came into
David's office and asked for $3,000 to settle The Rosenbergs' financial
accounts in the US.

The agreed ceiling of $150,000 for The Rosenbergs had already been reached;
I did not consider it my brief, nor DGM responsibility, to extend our own
borrowing to put The Rosenbergs' books to bed: rather, I see that as the
artists' own responsibility. So, I declined.

Robert the younger man, burning with music while facing a largely uncaring
world, and an older man whose sharp judgements have become rounded with many
years' experience of disappointments in life, I am now more accepting &
understanding of events & people's reactions that once would have elicited a
harsh response. But, simply put, if given the choice I would rather own my
record than the large debt that enabled it to enter the world.

Perhaps the distance between those who pay the bills, and those who expect
them to be paid, is too great.

vi) DGM employees have, in the main, been artist-friendly &
artist-supportive. Some have authorised advertising that had no hope of
recovering the cost by generating additional sales. David & others spent
many hours discharging managerial functions, that were not part of our
responsibility, when the costs of that time could never be recouped. Several
of the artists were well aware that they were taking advantage of DGM's good
nature.

vii) DGM's close proximity to Guitar Craft and Crafties in its early period
generated a supportive & non-judgemental context more appropriate in Guitar
Craft than for a company that had to pay its bills. Pennies did not always
drop and, when they did, not always quickly.

viii) DGM UK administered DGM US for nothing & DGM Japan for nothing.

DGM took no money for organising & negotiating releases in Japan. Our
Japanese partners took a percentage & we considered that adding a DGM UK
percentage was onerous for the artists. DGM US became self-sufficient but
didn't seem able to reach the point where it could support the UK operation.
So, DGM UK survived on the European distribution which, spread over 10
territories, required huge amounts of processing - paperwork, administration
& accounting. It often cost more for DGM to render accounts to the smaller
artists than the total of their royalties.

viii) The Vicar has looked on in disbelief at the business decisions of DGM,
the trading organization he dismissively calls «The Charity».

Summary:

i) Good at presenting music to the world that would otherwise probably not
have been presented, or under conditions that would have compromised it. Not
any good at encouraging people that weren't interested in buying it to buy
it.

ii) Not very good at providing artists with large amounts of money. However,
for the Crimsons at least, the royalties that otherwise would not have been
available became part of the income stream of the lifer-pro musician.

iii) Not very good at promoting the careers or artists that the public
didn't know.

iv) DGM's global view was not matched by sales.

v) To some extent, DGM appears to influence the people that influence the
people. If that's all we achieved, that's already quite a lot.

vi) Bootleg TV would have provided a distribution & business structure that
DGM was unable to provide, working almost completely in the world of bricks
& mortar.

Conclusion:

Never allow your business to become reliant upon artists: there is a
conflict of interest between what is right, true & necessary; and supporting
the business structure. The creative act cannot be other than hazardous.
Were DGM to continue as it was, it would become perverted.

The distance between those that pay the bills, and those that expect them to
be paid, is considerable.

2. Ton Prob Production Mastering: Success.

This is mainly David & Robert taking original analogue tapes of varying
quality and making them sonically presentable, even exceptional. David's
conscientious work over long days & nights, weeks & sometimes months, made
the King Crimson archive series - Epitaph, The Nightwatch, Absent Lovers -
and the Collectors' Club possible. And where DGM artists delivered records
that were not quite of the standard all had hoped for, then David sprinkled
fairy dust.

3. The King Crimson Fan Club: Failure.

The success of the KC Archive series & the Club lead to DGM becoming a de
facto KC Fan Club. Normal business was often interrupted and delayed by fan
communications & interaction.

4. The King Crimson Collectors' Club: Wonderfully Mixed Blessing.

A stunning model of how to provide archive material & snapshots of process
to those most interested: success.

As a business model, only 3,000 members make this nearly uneconomical: close
call.

Discovery of rare items, including materials not yet available: success +.

As a way of focusing on the past, and holding back the future: close call.

As a way of identifying DGM with the KC Fan Club: total success.

5. King Crimson Quasi-Management: Mixed.

i) The industry looked to DGM as responsible for the entire KC catalogue, de
facto KC management, and responsible for all of KC activities over the
years. This worked for as long as DGM had the confidence and support of the
Crimson players.

Increasingly, several early members expressed their lack of confidence in
DGM & its RHVL. Discussions aimed at establishing a consensus regarding
releases & licensing became fractious, extensive & time consuming, even
aggressively insulting on an escalating basis. Seeking agreement among early
Crims on a common course of action might be seen as the triumph of hope over
experience.

We have a high tolerance of dissent and a low threshold for active ill-will.
In DGM office-speak this is sometimes referred to as the No-Jerk Policy.

1969-71: Failure.

ii) 1972-2002: Success.

Irritation, angst, disagreement. Pride in the work. No ill-will.

6. DGM Website: Mixed.

i) Guestbook & Diaries: Success.

DGM has been very good at encouraging interaction & dialogue between its
artists & family, and the interested public. This didn't generate income
directly, but that wasn't the primary aim. Any sales were a fortunate
outcome - this might be a DGM leitmotif.

The written word/s represents a high investment of energy & attention from a
lot of people. Most Diarists hesitated before exposing themselves to public
ridicule and I am grateful that they proceeded. Many comments on the
Guestbook have been highly informative, although probably not always in the
ways that the poster intended.

Guestbook & Diary functions are not properly the job of DGM. DGM initiated
them, sponsored them, they are well-received. Now the idea works, it is
appropriate that this is over to someone else to maintain it.

ii) E-Commerce: failure.

The new home for the Diaries & Guestbook on Krimson News validates the work,
although this is not reflected in DGM income. The website was an old-model
creation, before steam gave way to electricity, and the site's operations
were subsidised by DGM. A new-model site would have allowed for online
ordering, streaming, downloads & subscription services. Attempts to set this
up failed.

Acts of heroism by Dan took the site about as far as it could go without a
complete rebuild, and a complete rebuild was impossible while the site was
fully up and running. Dan managed to get a Model T onto modern highway but
it was never possible for the site to become self-supporting.

7. DGM Catalogue: Mixed.

Some of the catalogue would not have been released without DGM and deserved
to be. And some releases did not have quite the musical necessity that the
world needed their appearance.

8. DGM US Office: Mixed.

It may be impossible for an American office to have an English brain, unless
that English brain is also resident in the American body.

The Past

Where we are going is how we get there.

There is no mistake save one - the failure to learn from a mistake.

All those who have given me real, or imagined, offence - please know you are
forgiven.

Those I have offended, for any of my real or imagined failings, please
forgive me.

The Future

Monday 8th. April, 2002; 14.56

DGM HQ.

Call & e-mails are coming in, and Bill Bruford is visiting tomorrow, with
concerns over The Sad Event. The change in DGM's condition, from that of
about-to-be-moving-on to that of being-arrived-at-having-moved-on, is not
sad at all. It is a triumph, resurrection, rebirth, a Wonderful & Joyous
Event.

16.03 An e-mail has arrived for David Singleton from a character whose
ongoing correspondence with us has been reliably hostile. Today's letter is
friendly and open, commiserating with what he perceives as the collapse of
DGM. Why should his only friendly & open letter be in response to our
(presumed) failure?

17.31 David of The Rosenbergs has been on the telephone, disassociating
himself from Evan's comments. This for soon-posting to the shell DGM site.

DGM Business Aims.

May we trust the inexpressible benevolence of the creative impulse.

DGM is a business structure & vehicle for the projects of Robert Fripp,
David Singleton & The Vicar, trading under precepts of the ethical company.
These projects include King Crimson, the ProjeKcts, Soundscapes, Ton Prob &
The Vicar Chronicles.

The Ethical Company

Recognisable features of the ethical company, in the literature and
discussion of business ethics, involve these attributes:

transparency,

straightforwardness,

accountability,

owning-up,

honesty,

fairness,

common decency,

distributive justice.

Recognisable features of a company whose base is ethically challenged are
these:

dissembling,

use of threats,

unkindness to employees,

a widespread use of gagging orders,

an inequitable distribution of company income.

A company which would rather conduct its business:

verbally (particularly with regard to disputed issues) instead of committing
its views to writing;

commonly resorts to litigation, or employs the frequent threat of such;
employs gagging clauses as standard policy;

pays its directors highly disproportionate sums in comparison with its
employees;

this company is suspect and should be avoided wherever possible.

It is a sad commentary on current business and public life that this needs
to be written, or debated.

transparency + straightforwardness=honesty

accountability + owning-up=responsibility

distributive justice + fairness=equity

common decency=goodwill

The Four Pillars of The Ethical Company

Honesty

Responsibility

Equity

Goodwill


Robert Fripp,

DGM HQ, Wiltshire, England;


Monday 8th. April, 2002.



[ This Message was edited by: DanKirkd on 2002-04-09 01:49 ]