Posted 9:28 PM by Dave Allen
Well, in a strange way I still feel very connected to Silicon Valley actually. After arriving here in Portland to work for Intel I realized very quickly that the content holders were not going to give up their hold on things easily, that they would try and hang on to their market share as best they could. I decided that to return to what I do best, making music, would put me back in touch with that je n'est ce quoi that artists have, you know, the reason why we do it although we don't understand why.
And now I understand why I was involved in the search for a new delivery system all these past years, it's the music stupid! And the major label system knocked the wind out of my sails. So by going back to my roots as it were, I have discovered that my passion for change is greater than it was at Emusic.com and Intel.
All I have to do now is make music which keeps me sane and find a job at a forward thinking company that can use my skills and still allow me to keep playing too!
Meanwhile I watch the label system twist and turn in the wind.
It's all very metaphorical of course!

Dave


On 4/30/02 8:31 PM, "Woody Lewis" wrote:

> Believe me, I understand. I especially appreciate your having migrated
> from the Silicon Valley world back to music. I've been lazy with my
> writing and playing for too many years, and should in fact be on the
> edge w/hip hop. Indulgences in decades gone by are fun, but not
> particularly productive or innovative. I've had fun playing the oldies
> for boomers that recognize them, but probably need to be out there
> where you are.
>
> /w
>
>
> At 05:39 PM 4/30/02, you wrote:
>> I understand. Just my preference is to listen to artists who do things
>> differently. And I admit, some of the artists I admire the most recycle the
>> old stuff too. Right now I am purposefully avoiding these retro rock
>> recyclers like Ryan Adams and The Strokes, Hives etc just to avoid polluting
>> my world as I am in the middle of a new progressive hip hop recording right
>> now.
>>
>> Dave
>

Posted 11:46 AM by Dave Allen
Brad,

I believe you are missing the point. It may bother you that people like Ian
and myself are not in it for the money or the girls but I don't believe that
either of us have said that making money is evil. I believe very strongly in
the art form and being paid is a consequence of my talent as an artist. I do
believe that the commercialization of music has resulted in bad music
though, just turn on the radio. Maybe everyone who worships at the altar of
Mammon should lighten up too!

Dave
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Willcox"

"during the first interview I was ever a part of, the woman who was
interviewing us asked, “Are you in a band for the girls or for the money?”
And at the time it had never occurred to me that anybody on earth would be
in a band for either one of those reasons. From my point of view, it just
seemed insane. I thought that people were in bands to play music, and that
was it. It never occurred to me that there would only be these two
choices."
>
> One thing is certain--this guy didn't join a band to exercise his sense of
> humor. Sheesh, lighten up.
>
> The real problem I have with holier-than-though testaments from musicians is
> the reinforcement of a certain political correctness--the artist's mind
> should not be tainted by commercial impulse. And this attitude is
> transferred all too easily to discussions of online file-sharing and free
> music generally. I'm the most pro-P2P guy around, but that doesn't mean that
> I think money is evil, commercial ambition betrays the audience, or creating
> for a market invariably results in bad music. In fact, that sort of
> prejudicial thinking might be as damaging to the future of a viable digital
> marketplaces as corporate short-sightedness and rigidity.
>
> Brad

Posted 11:42 AM by Dave Allen
Jim,

Of course Ian MacKaye's position sums up mine exactly. In fact Ian and I had
a lengthy discussion about this at Future of Music and in subsequent phone
calls over the last few months. Interestingly Fugazi followed in the steps
of my band Gang of Four in attempting to reach people by playing music that
we felt everyone was entitled to hear. Fugazi's $5 concert ticket price took
things further than Gang of Four but we would actually play for free as
often as possible at benefits attempting to raise political awareness among
our audience.
Ian and his band are highly principled in their stance and it is heartening
that he, like me, is still playing and forging ahead attempting to make a
difference. I think we both understand very clearly that success comes in
many shapes and forms and definitely does not require a recording contract
to validate it.

Dave Allen

On 4/18/02 7:17 AM, "Jim Willcox" wrote:

> RE Paul & Dave's conversation about making a living playing music:
>
> I'm in the process of editing a joint interview with Ian MacKaye (Fugazi)
> and Mike Watt (the Minutemen), and jeez, their takes on being a musician are
> so totally at odds with what I'm hearing from most younger artists. Here are
> a few snippets of the Ian MacKaye's conversation -- if anyone's interested
> in the whole article, I should have it edited and posted on our site next
> week:
>
> MacKaye: "My point as a musician is that I want people to hear my music. It’
> s not about getting paid. So, that’s really clear to me. And if I write a
> song that somebody else wants to hear, that’s great. But I’ve written plenty
> of songs that people don’t want to hear, and that’s all right, too. But when
> you ask me a question like what sort of advice can I give people, in my
> opinion it’s to just love what they do. And that way, if they end up
> thinking they’re a failure, at least they would have spent their time doing
> something they love. That’s it. That’s all I can think of, because each
> scenario, or each context, is so different...
>
> "What struck me when I was at that [Future of Music] conference was that
> there were all these questions from people saying, “How can we go on tour
> and make a living from our band?” And I’m thinking, 'Wait a minute, where’s
> this entitlement coming from?' People who can manage to squeeze music out of
> a stick with wires on it are already blessed, they’re already fortunate as
> it is. And if they’re able to play with other people and write songs, that’s
> an incredible blessing, too. Most people would be very happy to have that.
> If they can actually write a song and go on tour, they’re fortunate beyond
> belief. But then when I hear people say, 'How can we go on tour and make a
> living?' It’s like, 'God, you should be just happy you can go on tour. You
> should be happy you can play music at all.' The thing is, if you write
> music... all I can ever think about is to write a good song -- to make
> people WANT to see you. It’s not like a career path. It’s not like you
> decide, well, either I’m gonna be a waiter or I’m gonna be a musician. It
> doesn't work like that, where you just automatically decide 'I think I’m
> just gonna be a musician and make my living that way because it looks like
> those guys make a lot of money.' That’s just insane. Because the thing about
> being a waiter, for instance, is that you’re working in a restaurant in a
> structure that [is already established] -- people are gonna come eat, and
> you can bring their food to them, or whatever.
>
> "But when it comes to music, it’s not like you automatically get an audience
> just because you’re in a band. You have to be bringing something to the
> table that makes people want to come. THEN you can start talking about
> whether or not you can make enough money to eat yourself. It’s a really
> interesting phenomenon. I think that people now are thinking about it in
> terms of a career path. But I just never have thought about it, ever. From
> my point of view, in the beginning, when I first started playing music,
> during the first interview I was ever a part of, the woman who was
> interviewing us asked, “Are you in a band for the girls or for the money?”
> And at the time it had never occurred to me that anybody on earth would be
> in a band for either one of those reasons. From my point of view, it just
> seemed insane. I thought that people were in bands to play music, and that
> was it. It never occurred to me that there would only be these two choices.
> So it’s very hard for me to really empathize with people who can’t figure
> out how to make a living from their music. Instead of that, how ‘bout making
> some music, and then we’ll see if a living can follow?"
>
> "I always tell people, music is a form of communication that predates
> language, straight up. It’s been around forever. And it wasn’t until about
> the turn of the century that they figured out a way to 'bottle the water,'
> you know? Before that, music was a river. It was a river, and everyone could
> sip from that river. But then, someone came along with the idea that, 'Hey,
> we can bottle this, and we can sell this water.' And people were like,
> 'Well, that’s kind of cool, that’s convenient, because I can take it home
> with me, or I can put it in my pocket, take it on a walk and have something
> to drink,' which is fine. That’s a reasonable industry -- to go ahead and
> put some water in a bottle and sell it. That’s fine. But the problem is when
> they start trying to discourage people from going to the river, or trying to
> close [down] the river, or even worse, poison the river -- then it’s not all
> right. Then it stinks.
>
> "And, for me, music is not an industry. Music is not even entertainment. It’
> s not just a soundtrack. Music is part of life. It is a straight-up form of
> communication, and it resides in every person in the world. And that’s where
> I’m coming from in terms of music. That’s exactly the world that I want to
> be... At the same time, when it comes to music, there are certain elements
> of what we do with music that are just distasteful. If people see music as a
> living, they’re just screwed. They’re just gonna make something that’s not
> music, in my opinion. But there are plenty of other people out there who are
> making incredible music who are not even thinking about money, and that’s
> really where you’re gonna find all the new ideas. It’s always in the free
> space."
>
> Anyway, you get the idea. For Watt and MacKaye, they never really had a
> choice -- they were put on this earth to make music, and all the other stuff
> came after -- and actually, because of -- that. As a side note -- Fugazi
> never charged over $5 for a concert ticket because they wanted their music
> to be heard by anyone who wanted to listen.
>
> Best,
>
> Jim
>
> James K. Willcox
> Editorial Director/VP of New Media
> StarPolish
> http://www.starpolish.com

Posted 2:20 PM by Dave Allen
Brad,

As a musician on the list I have to say that I totally disagree with the
contention that digital piracy is the main cause for lower sales. I would
suggest that the labels have lost touch with their customers and that retail
stores don't work as a destination (I include the Megastores in this
equation). The industry has managed to disenfranchise at least two
generations of new cd buyers and kids these days who do buy cds turn around
and burn multiple copies for their buddies.
The music industry is still looking in the wrong direction. Meanwhile the
Internet offers huge potential for artists to do things their own way. It
offered the same potential to the labels too but they appear to be fighting
it rather than embracing it. As Jim Griffin has often pointed out on the
list, the customer is always right, and the customer is obviously voting
with her feet.

Dave

Posted 2:14 PM by Dave Allen
From: Wendy K
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 19:58:28 +0100
Subject: Re: Internet Piracy and musicians

We woke up to this story being reported on BBC TV Breakfast news.
Here's how it went:

BBC reporter interviewed guy who manages Rough Trade, the record
shop and from the looks of it, they were on Talbot Road in Notting
Hill. Pete Donne (I think his name) from the shop said that he
wasn't surprised that vinyl and CD sales have increased in the UK as
we have "a strong relationship with vinyl and collecting in the UK".

They showed a UK teenager who said she'd downloaded loads from the
internet but she was still going out and buying her CD's, in fact she
thought she was buying more because she was finding more bands that
were like ones she liked. Another journo said that the main reason
why there wasnt such an impact in the UK was because not that many
people had broadband, and it was taking people half an hour to
download a song so they werent bothering. Ok, as of Aug 2001 .net
magazine only 2.3% of the UK households were connecting this way.
However, he forgot about schools and work where people are
downloading away. April 1st, BT reduced adsl rates to encourage
people to get broadband.

(btw: Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, Spain, Norway, UK, Italy in
that order for broadband connectivity in EEC)

if you're going to talk about piracy and musicians, there's as much
piracy going on outside the net in different countries as there is
online - can we go after all of the terrorists/pirates in the world?
or is there something we can learn from them?

i cant see the disappearance of vinyl -- yet. i work with and know
too many people who would rather spend $100 on a record than eat for
two weeks.

wendy


________________________
http://www.ninjatune.net

Posted 1:37 PM by Dave Allen
SXSW interactive and the post post-boom landscape
Information Wants to Be Worthless
BY BRUCE STERLING
Bruce Sterling takes stock of the situation.

I can't wait for this next South by Southwest Interactive. I don't know why
they still call it that, though. They used to call it "Multimedia." Now even
"Interactive" sounds corny.

If I were them, I'd rename the event every year. This year in particular
demands a major image rethink. How about "SXSW Cyberspace Terrorist Paranoia"?
"SXSW Axis of Evil Global InfoWar"? Might we arrange open-house tours of Enron
and Global Crossing, perhaps using chartered buses? Why, there's just so much
to discuss!

SXSW Interactive has suffered surprisingly little from the collapse of
dot-communism. The core demographic at SXSW is the woolly-eyed digital
creative, a species of creature from way before the Boom. Those characters were
never anywhere near the big IPOs. They were all fueled by sheer subcultural
coolness.

Back in the Neolithic dawn of the Internet, you see, the academics who built it
used to beat the living crap out of a businessman the very moment they saw him.
One peep of commercial spam on their stainless not-for-profit network, and the
net-gods would reach right into your router and just throttle you, like an
egg-sucking dog. Businessmen would take one look at that impossible Internet
code, and they'd pick up their gray flannels and flee headlong to CompuServe
and Prodigy. You young folks these days, you probably don't even remember
"CompuServe." They croaked from being way too compu-servile.

Graying cyberpunk that I am ... all carpal-tunnel and bifocals ... I can well
remember some weirdo pals in the Information-Wants-to-Be-Free contingent, idly
wondering what would happen if the business world ever "discovered the
Internet." Obviously they would buy up every machine in sight and try to make a
profit at it. That much was dead obvious, for that was the period's
Reagan-Thatcherite modus operandi. Clearly all us artsy cybergoofballs would
have to find some other place to chatter and swap our lies, like, say, faxes or
CB radio.

But one scenario was way too far-fetched and idealistic, even for the likes of
us. What if it turned out that the Net was just plain too much for business to
handle? That it was downright toxic to free enterprise?

But look what happened. When was the last time that you saw commerce, global
capitalism, competition, the profit motive, the real deal ... choking on
advanced technology as if they'd swallowed a jalapeño? What a spectacle! It
ranks with the beached gasping of Marxism-Leninism in 1989.

Unworkable business models, the squalid collapse of e-commerce plans and b-to-b
markets. Hundreds of dead corporations, with e-biz magazines gone thinner than
Kate Moss. And those overachievers from Enron, my God! Thinking so far outside
the box that they're in the witness box.

I could well go on, but you don't want to hear this story from me. You want to
hear this from Lawrence Lessig, noted author of Code and Other Laws of
Cyberspace and The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected
World. Lawrence Lessig will be keynoting SXSW on the cogent subject of "The
Creative Commons." Lawrence Lessig is a Stanford law professor and Lessig is
one heavy cyber-dude, he is heavier than depleted uranium. He despises
copyright abuse, and he also knows who, how, and why they stole our broadband.
I love that Lessig guy. Just knowing the truth is out there, it cheers me all
up.

Okay, so the Net has proved toxic to business and nobody's making any money
there. That stopped the profiteering, except for the spammers of course ...
hucksters who are methodically bringing net.commerce into such putrid disrepute
that it may well never recover. Lack of money, though, is not stopping the
innovation. It never did. The Internet now reaches half the population of the
USA. It is starting big seismic rumblings in China, Iran, and India, societies
that lack their own AOL Time Warner and therefore have some dead-serious uses
for cheap global network communication. Worldwide, people use the Net for
e-mail. E-mail never had a real business model, but it was one feature
everybody always wanted. The Net is becoming the planet's water cooler. It's
all about the schmoozing and the gossip.

If you think the business scene at this year's Austin 360 was morbid, and
demoralized, and pitiful, and I was there, and boy was it ever -- well, you
should have seen the Davos World Economic Forum up in New York City. Which I
also witnessed, for reasons I don't much care to explain. Okay, I'm
topic-drifting here, but don't flame me just yet. You see, everybody at Davos
was scolding, not the computer-crazy Americans, but the Japanese. They expect
the Japanese banks to crater just any minute now. And get this: The Japanese
never swallowed any New Economy Kool-Aid. The Japanese bend metal, they make
Sony Walkmans and cars. They're still royally screwed. Try explaining that.
It's sure more than Fortune or The Economist are able to manage.

Houston is supposed to be a solid, non-nonsense, oil-bidness town. Houston
doesn't have any SXSW. Poor Houston is the snakebitten home of Enron, while
Austin's feckless cyberslackers are still grinning and hitting the Return key.
Yeah, Dell fired some people here, so maybe local rents will drop and all the
potters and tapestry weavers will return from Wimberley. Man, anything's
possible these days.

The good folks of SXSW Interactive have a whole lotta blogging in the schedule.
You may have never heard of "weblogging," because it never yet made anyone
rich, but blogging is a way cool deal, man. Metafilter, Memepool,
Boingboing.net, I'm on those blogs all the time. Blogdex, Daypop, those sites
rock. SXSW Interactive is totally awash in the cream of blogger royalty.
They've got Meg of Megnut, and Derek of Powazek, and Jason of Kottke, and
Jeffrey of Alistapart, and a very Mongol host of other bloggers. If this
recital means nothing to you, you are probably old and near death now.

Unlike those stellar bloggers, I was way too lazy to build any software, but I
myself have a blog these days. This is a sure symptom of a major social
contagion. It's much like my teenage daughter's AOL Instant Message mania. Her
Mom and I, we were kinda worried about her 90% digital social life, until we
realized that we don't have to buy her a car or any gasoline.

Net types like to catfight about whether blogging is the Way Forward or utter
self-indulgence. Since it is almost certainly both at once, blogging is quite
the hot topic. So there will be some bloggery debate, with scowling, and
finger-wagging, and pepper-gassing. Yes, blogging has its limitations. There
isn't much in the way of original content, for instance. Weblogging consists
mostly of logging one's websurfing activities, then making sardonic comments
about whatever you see. An activity one's admirers find hilarious. Yet admirers
rarely pay for this. Except in their admiration.

Fame, glamour, gold ... so funny how that works! Camgirls, for instance. The
trials and tribulations of girls with Web cameras, those are issues one might
well broach with a SXSW expert, like say, Amanda from Amandacam.

Sometimes, as a camgirl ... no, I am not a camgirl myself, but I maintain a
chilly, detached, surgical interest in their doings. As a camgirl, you might
post some lovely and somewhat indiscreet pictures of yourself on the Internet.
Or a picture of your boyfriend. For instance, your sweet, geeky boyfriend that
you stole from some other camgirl, who is somewhat less attractive than you,
and therefore gets fewer expensive toys from her admirers, purchased and
shipped from her handy Amazon wish list. Margaret Mead could get three or four
hot anthropological monographs out of this behavior, easily.

At least you'll be better off than poor Chu Mei Feng in Taiwan, who is a female
politician who got cammed against her will by a jealous woman. Chu Mei Feng had
a highly unprivate romp with a married Internet entrepreneur. That footage got
spread to every horny Chinese guy on the Net. Today, all around the Pacific
Rim, poor Chu Mei Feng is bigger than Monica Lewinsky. Everybody's Googling for
her downloads. Chu Mei Feng is not attending SXSW, so presumably that means the
rest of us get to discuss her and her remarkable, uh, issues. Chu Mei Feng is
one of those entirely noncommercial, communitarian Net phenomena, of such
intense interest to activists, intellectuals, and academics. And to science
fiction novelists. Man, 21st-century life is rich and full!

Got some gamers showing up. Harvey Smith from ION Storm, for instance. I'm glad
to see gamers on the SXSW scene, as when it comes to commercial Net
entertainment, online gamers have the golden touch. Massive multiplayer online
games: They're ticking like clockwork. People are in those game environments
whacking at virtual dragons with imaginary swords and man, do these game guys
coin the cash. Players of Everquest even sell their Everquest gear on eBay. To
judge by the auction traffic, Everquest players, who are not even human but
virtual characters, have a higher per capita income than Russians.

Meanwhile, Slate and Salon and Feed and Plastic, and all these supposed
professional communicators, man, do they ever suffer. I'd like to see one
political organizer, even Begala or Carville, who could put together an online
crowd that can match those clamoring masses of Ultima or Everquest. When will
the mainstream catch on to this? It's so baffling.

Lotta Web designers. They're always there. They travel in clumps. Because they
speak their own unique languages, these people. Specifically, they speak
ActiveX, ASP, CGI, HTML, Flash, and Java. It's a wonderful thing to see a
profession so young, yet already so arcane. Furniture designers had to work for
hundreds of years before they ever used terms like "ischial tuberosity." Even
magazine designers, the closest relatives of Web designers, well, they still
kinda speak English, at least until you get them started on typography.

This would be a very good time to hang out with the Open Source people, before
they get formally reclassified as a national security threat. Have you noticed
that Microsoft is declaring that "security" is their brand-new, No. 1 reason to
live? And how about that alphabet soup of new American cyber-security agencies?
Like, for instance, the "Information Awareness Office" at DARPA, which is being
run by Admiral John Poindexter, of Iran-Contra fame?

I'm not trying to wax all Noam Chomsky here, but those Open Source people ...
they are, like, a multinational, leaderless, heavily networked outfit with
little-known agents and sympathizers in dozens of countries. Countries like
Finland. And Norway. It's definitely the Axis of something, I dunno what, but
something Scandinavian and fishy. You wouldn't believe how many active Linux
zealots there are in India. India is right next door to a place, which is right
next door to a place, that had some terrorists.

Sulekha.org is a Web site for Indian expatriates that is run out of Austin.
Sulekha is the most sophisticated ethnic community Web site I've ever seen. I
just webclicked a movie ticket for the Austin showing of Haan Maine Bhi Pyaar
Kiya, starring Karisma Kapoor. Somebody should pass the word to the SXSW Film
Festival that Bollywood is slithering into town via the Internet.

If Napster and its P2P clones ever get loose, nobody in the music business will
make any money ever again. And if 802.11b ever works, nobody will sell Internet
access and AOL will go broke. And if Linux had a decent graphic user interface,
Bill Gates would have no business model. Bill would have to spend all his time
giving vaccinations to little kids. You tell me what we're supposed to do about
this menace.

There are a few highly interactive groups that I don't see at SXSW Interactive.
They would be cops, terrorists, and the military. It hasn't escaped the notice
of authorities that Shoe-Bombing Boy was very into Yahoo and Hotmail. The
hounds of infowar are poring over captured al Qaeda hard disks as you read
this. The computer cops have a new top-level cybersecurity office. As for the
military, they were Internet from day one. If you websurf for the Pentagon's
"Joint Vision 2020" on "network-centric warfare," you'll see a digital
cluetrain like you wouldn't believe. We'll be seeing a lot more out of these
people on the Net, we're gonna get all cheek-by-jowl and cozy with 'em. And you
know what? They're so noncommercial, too!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Sterling, one of the premier names in near future fiction, is a Hugo
Award-winning writer, and the author of Heavy Weather, Holy Fire, and
Zeitgeist.

Posted 11:36 AM by Dave Allen
The Cd listening post dilemma.

You know, this is one of those interesting questions. Listening stations have worked both ways for me personally. Just yesterday, no doubt wracked with guilt by Michael Greene’s Grammy speech last month, I bought four cds. I intended to only purchase one, “Geogaddi” by Boards of Canada which I picked up instantly. Then I picked up “Wanna buy a Monkey?” by Dan the Automator, “Simple Things” by Zero 7 and “Honeymoon” by DJ Cam. My criteria in these purchases was simple. I love everything that Dan the Automator & DJ Cam have done and I can’t get enough of Boards of Canada. Zero 7 on the other hand was a band that I have read about but was never compelled to search for online and luckily for me (them, their label?) they were on the listening station. I listened, I liked, I bought. Now in the past I have picked up cds that have been given glowing write ups and then I’ve listened to them in store and realized that my tastes and the average record reviewers tastes are way, way different, so therefore no sale occurred. So it’s Catch 22. The industry’s problem is simply that the Clear Channel and Infinity radio stations broadcasting their over-sanitized crap day in day out over the airwaves does not appeal to the young, new, generation of record buyers nor the boomer demographic like myself. The above mentioned cds I bought are most likely not getting any airplay (except for Dan’s “other” outfit, Gorillaz) but if people were exposed to them they would buy them. They are all brilliant albums in their own diverse way. This is where Webcasting Internet stations will beat the broadcasters in the long run. Launchcast, Music Match and RadioFreeVirgin are where it’s at for me and an awful lot of people I know. Maybe with enough cool content being accessed online via Internet Radio the retailers will get to rely less on the listening stations because the customers are far more informed when they enter the store. And those customers are not there to browse but to buy the cool music that they’ve been exposed to. As for what to stock, that’s a whole scenario that relates to the store buying in more of the cds that are in the listening station because the labels have bought into the program. And of course the more bought in is a problem if they don’t sell because then there is more to return and that hurts the artist and the label. So, Catch 22 indeed, damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

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 ]

Posted 11:59 AM by Dave Allen
Here's a blog take from Evan Silverman (Rosenbergs).

http://www.livejournal.com/users/esterling/

4:42 pm - The deal with DGM

As some of you know, the Discipline Global Mobile website is now down. And
by clicking "links", you'll see that we are not listed as "DGM Artists" but
as "Friends of DGM". So I guess this means I can spill some of the beans.

When we signed with DGM in November of 2001, everyone involved was very
excited. But slowly everything started to unravel. I really think they did
the best they could have done with the limited overhead they had. They gave
us more money then promised. But, with only a handful of bands and
employees, things like "using connections" to get us on a tour was
impossible. With the exception of the tour with Echo & the Bunnymen, of
course.

Still, even though there was very little positive to come out of our
relationship with DGM (as a management company) after August 2001, we were
still against severing the ties, partly because DGM supported us when no-one
else did. But all that changed when Adrian came to town last month. We found
out that...

Despite our contract with DGM, which promises us X amount of money for three
records, DGM was not going to give us any more money. And that, for all
intents and purposes, we're not even on DGM any longer. Turns out there is
simply no money for them to be able to give. But that also means that the
$500 promised for our rehearsal space could not be covered. We had borrowed
that money when DGM had told us "the money is currently being wired", so we
were screwed.

And I'm screwed, in a bad way. The Amex bill, which DGM said they were going
to pay, is in my name. It's not that much, but is way over the $25 I have in
my bank account right now. We found out that we'd be responsible for that
money. Which means that I'm responsible, since the whole band is terribly
broke.

WHICH MEANS THAT every other day I'm getting calls from American Express
telling me that I now have bad credit.

Our business manager knows it's bullshit. Our manager also works at DGM, so
he's in a sticky situation as it is.

And I'm fucked.

I still have nothing personal against Mr. Fripp or any other employees at
DGM. I wish some things went different. I wish they didn't leave us dry,
throwing aside the contract and going against their word. But wishes don't
really mean shit, do they?

So we're doing the only thing that we can do, which is move on. We've
written a lot of new songs and we're sure that things will soon take a turn
for the better. In the meantime, anyone want to pay my Amex bill?