Talk:The KLF

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star The KLF is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 9, 2007.
This article is part of WikiProject The KLF, an attempt to improve and expand coverage of The KLF and related topics.

Talk to us. KLF-related Articles in need of attention.


This article is also within the scope of WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians on Wikipedia.
To-do list for The KLF: edit · history · watch · refresh

Some old ideas for KLF Communications, currently a section here:

  • How/why Bill and Jimmy established KLF Communications (good knowledge, contacts?)
  • Strategies: looking at KLF Communications as a company, what was its style? (for example, its early low-key releases; info sheets and exclusive-to-subscribers stuff; promotion usually riding on the back of Jimmy and Bill's antics as The JAMs/The KLF.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rave, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to Rave, Rave music and other various aspects of rave culture. For more information, visit our project page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia There is a request, submitted by 82.9.16.188, for an audio version of this article to be created.

See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information.

The rationale behind the request is: "featured article, important band".

See also: Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests and Wikipedia:Spoken articles.
Featured article star The KLF was named best article in the Humanities & Culture class at Wikimania 2006
Peer review This Arts article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] The Userbox

It would be nice if the "This user knows what time is love" userbox have included the category and the link "The KLF fans" or something like this, in the footer of userpages. So that the category would automatically collect the list.--Kochas 23:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link this?

Found this site on the web http://www.thesoundof.mu

Does anybody know what this "upcoming documentation" is about? 84.58.178.90 20:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Presumably unofficial, let's just wait and see. Grab the MP3 while you can though! --kingboyk 20:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of their back catalogue

What exactly does it mean for an artist to "delete" their back catalog? Does it mean it is now in the public domain? Does it mean it's no longer in print? (I think it means something much stronger than this.) Also, I'm listening to The White Room right now on rhapsody.com, so I don't understand what it really means to delete a back catalog. I think this should be clarified in the article, as I think many readers don't really know what it means. Thanks. --Rajah 04:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought "deletion" of a catalogue was fairly widely understood, but perhaps not! :) I'll have a think about adding a note on it's meaning. In the meantime, it means simply that the records aren't available in the shops any more. THey have been "deleted from the catalogue". The copyright in those recordings remains with their owners (indeed they must get paid when a KLF song is played on the radio). So, no, they're not public domain although KLF material is traded liberally amongst fans, as one might expect. --kingboyk 16:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
There's now an article on this - Deletion (music industry) - so I've wikilinked it. --kingboyk 20:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
So, in other words, it is the same as being Out of print (OOP) or Out of Production? Antmusic 20:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a bit stronger than Out of print. Books can fall out of print simply because no publisher wants to take a chance on them. The owners of the copyrights on the KLF back catalog refuse to ever let it be reissued.
This can happen with books too, but it's much rarer. Rpresser 11:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much I guess. Gee, I'm not a linguist! :) --kingboyk 20:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it basically means the same. It means currently the record label isn't pressing more copies - you may find some in the shops though of a given CD on import. Sometimes they delete a CD's pressing only in certain territories where the artist isn't as popular. LuciferMorgan 11:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Right. And in The KLF's case, they deleted their catalogue in territories where they owned the distribution rights - most notably their home country of the UK, where all KLF records were on KLF Communications - but KLF and JAMs CDs are still pressed in the USA and possibly Germany because the catalogue had been licenced out. --kingboyk 11:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doctorin the TARDIS

It's worth mentioning that this song also samples The Sweet's song Block Buster. I'd throw that into the article if it weren't prepping for front-page status. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.176.15.79 (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Saves me adding the comment! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.38.88.6 (talk • contribs).
I think we just mention the key samples as this is an article about The KLF not Doctorin'. Vinoir, what do you think? --kingboyk 12:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Definitely. The song article is the place to bring in that level of detail. --Vinoir 18:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back slapping

That's a great article. Well done to all involved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.57.142.229 (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Glad you think so - cheers. :-) --Vinoir 01:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Fantastic article, with so much interesting detail. Never expected to see the KLF on the front page, so what a treat. Thanks for helping to bring the beat back! 86.133.214.44 07:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Excellent article, good to see it on the front page. Kaini 10:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adopted the philosophy?

The intro says: "From the outset, they adopted the philosophy espoused by esoteric novels The Illuminatus! Trilogy". That doesn't sound right to my ears. They obviously used the themes of The Illuminatus, but "adopting the philosophy" probably needs a source. Zocky | picture popups 07:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am saddened and disappointed

by the lack of a mention of Lori and the Chamaeleons (presumably since it is hard to spell?) as an early venture. I'm really, really sad. See me grin! LessHeard vanU 13:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm now listening to "Touch", does that make you feel any better? :) In all seriousness, it's mentioned in Bill Drummond. --kingboyk 13:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amazing, Simply Amazing

That there is a fully developed article on such a topic is amazing. That someone decided to make it a Featured Article is indescribable lunacy. The decision does a disservice to Wiki. What an interesting time we live in. 68.228.70.223 14:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol. So which topics have you taken to FA then? And shouldn't everybody take their topics of interest to FA? --kingboyk 15:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, how is it a disservice? This is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and all WP requires of an article to achieve FA standard status is that it is well written and properly cited/resourced. The ethos of "anyone can edit" means they can write about anything encyclopedic and, if it is good enough, it can be placed on the front page. There is no subject that is more equal than any others, and I think perhaps you are confused between quality and snobbery. LessHeard vanU 22:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, it is highly amusing that the KLF have an article comparable to that of General Relativity. Truly the Internets are a wonderful thing. Chris Cunningham 22:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Amusing, maybe, but amusing is a long way off what he said :) Anyway, must dash, I have to work on that relativity article ;) --kingboyk 22:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Amusing, yes, I should have said amusing. Dreadfully sorry. Completely missed the mark with using 'amazing'. (FAR off the mark, as you say.) I shall try much harder to avoid acute malaprops in the future. Sometimes I feel so inadequate. Sniff. Repeating, however, it is quite an "interesting" time that we live, as this discussion attests. 68.228.70.223 15:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I am still not getting it. Why? Both articles are a labour of love, both are properly cited, both went before peer review, both passed the benchmark of Featured Article status (well, I suppose General Theory of Relativity has, I haven't looked), both will draw attention from sections of the internet community, both will encourage people to consider contributing to Wikipedia and both will discourage people from wishing to contribute. I understand that you are referring to content, of course, but my response is that WP is very big and can incorporate any subject in an encyclopedic way. If it can, then of course it should and therefore any subject can make the front page if it is well written. A poorly researched and written article, however august the subject, is what does WP a disservice. IMO. LessHeard vanU 16:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm afraid I don't really understand the relevance of a comparison between The KLF and general relativity other than the fact that the two are pretty much mutually exclusive. As for living in interesting times, that's a tautology. Everything's interesting in some way, irrespective of what times you're living through. --Vinoir 16:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say it was disappointing, or inappropriate, or anything like that. I just said that I find it to be humourous. I'd worry about anyone who couldn't find anything intrinsically amusing about one of Wikipedia's better and more notable articles being a comprehensive biography of the KLF. It sort of sums up the Internet. In a good way. It reminds me of this Achewood strip, which like all of Achewood is fantastic. Chris Cunningham 18:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, as in delighted? Got it. That's cool. LessHeard vanU 16:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

Is the word "seminal" not blatantly POV? Tomgreeny 14:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you telling me the quotations and sources in the body of the article don't back that claim up? After reading, do you feel you've just read about a run of the mill band or a band who were seminal in their genre? I'm confident that claim is fully backed up by sources. --kingboyk 15:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
No question that "seminal" is appropriate - for example, genre-defining work is by definition seminal. Just because the word is commonly misused doesn't make it wrong here. --Vinoir 15:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, after I actually looking up the definition of seminal I've changed my mind. Tomgreeny 17:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. For other folks who are interested, here's the definition of seminal at Wiktionary. --kingboyk 17:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Seminal, when referring to music groups, is generally used to identify groups that "fathered" other groups, that is, whose members were later involved in other projects of note. E.g., Throbbing Gristle was seminal because it "fathered" Psychic TV, Coil, Chris+Cosey; Bauhaus was seminal because it "fathered" Love and Rockets, Tones on Tail, and Peter Murphy's solo work. I would not dispute that the KLF is a founding/important/influential/etc. acid house group, but given that their side projects (other than The Orb) are basically just the KLF under a new moniker, I too think that seminal is inappropriate in this context. Cherdt 17:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I retract my previous comment; the usage of "seminal" on this page appears to be consistent with a number of other music references. Cherdt 19:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ad typeface?

Just curious: what typeface did The KLF use in their advertisements? It looks like Impact, but I could be wrong. Ianthegecko 16:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I think it's in the KLF FAQ, and I think I have the font somewhere! I'm hoping User:Vinoir will answer this; if he doesn't I'll look it up and get back to you. --kingboyk 17:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, I wish I knew. I've never yet found a good answer to that question. The KLF FAQ guesses Compacta Bold. [1] --Vinoir 03:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
OK. I don't have any information beyond what the FAQ says, sorry. --kingboyk 12:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The great Monday morning cleanup

So, The KLF rocked the house over the weekend, but now there's rubbish all over the floor and we've got to clean up.

Here's the diff from pre-front page to now: [2]

Scanning through it, it looks like most of the changes are good. However, I think we ought to go through it as a team and check for any sneaky changes of meaning, red links, Americanisation of language, and what have you.

I think the front page was a success. Evidently from the obscene amount of vandalism a lot of people clicked through to the article. Presumably there's a thousand or more anonymous readers for every vandal... Also quite gratifyingly folks were obviously interested enough to click through to other articles as there was a lot of activity in other KLF articles too.

Job done but not something I care to repeat for a while! :) --kingboyk 12:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

JAMs have a party. It was intense.
We might see a bit more activity until we're not "recently featured" on the main page any more. I wonder if there's any way of finding out how many people had a look. Good idea on the clean-up front. I have a feeling that the "199x in music" links used to be frowned upon. --Vinoir 12:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
This shows the top 100 pages for the month; we're not in it. It's mostly sex related keywords and other junk, alas :) --kingboyk 11:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I changed the settings on that page and looked at the top 1000 (the highest it goes up to, I think). We're not in that either, which means that less than 4500 people clicked through. That's to be expected though - the big counts will have been notched up from search engine click-through, I would imagine, bypassing the main page. --Vinoir 22:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I had a look at this diff [3] and it seems good. --Vinoir 01:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking back at the old threads, what lovely comments we got :) Am most happy! --kingboyk 22:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. It is indeed very nice. :-) Could maybe put a couple on the Project page if the people who wrote them didn't mind. --Vinoir 22:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English?

I thought they were Scots. A point of contention, surely. Most Scots would bristle at such a mis-step in what is otherwise such a tremendous article. T L Miles

Drummond is Scottish, Cauty is English. As a duo they were based in London. --kingboyk 14:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Thinking about this further, the presence of the flag - whilst meant to denote geographical location not nationality - is probably confusing, so I'll remove it. Thanks for focusing my attention on this :) --kingboyk 14:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
All I can say, is no wonder this is such a good article: you folks do yeomen's labor, quickly and fairly. Color me impressed. T L Miles 15:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Much appreciated. --kingboyk 15:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unfree and copyright

For those not in the know - KLF mean Kopyright Liberation Front. All music and images by them are available for free distribution. —maxrspct ping me 21:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The first part of the statement is questionable - KLF might mean many things, or nothing. If we'd found anything definitive on the subject when researching the article we would have included it in the text. The second part is totally untrue. Some of The KLF's material is as far as I know still under licence to various record companies around the world, and Drummond/Cauty have never explicitly released their work into the public domain. That's not to say that their material hasn't been liberally traded without consequence - it has - but it's still copyright unless I've missed some big announcement. I think I know what you're saying - that when using some samples and images of The KLF we really needn't be paranoid - and I'd agree with you on that. --kingboyk 20:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Messiah

The article on the rave band Messiah (Messiah (band)) was deleted per CSD A7. I've had a look at the deleted article and don't wish to challenge the deletion. However, I'm not entirely convinced that Messiah are so "non notable" that an acceptable article cannot be written about them and, therefore, I'm wondering if removing the red link from this article (and others) was correct or not. Thoughts? --kingboyk 21:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I haven't heard of them myself, but it seems likely that something substantial was probably written about them at some point. They had a single that reached the Billboard Dance Music chart in 1992 and they have a short bio written up on AMG: http://wm04.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:fxftxq95ldke . If some more substantial information could be found, creating an article could be possible. The article before was a copy/paste job, so no point in undeleting it. Wickethewok 21:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Well I think the delinking ought to be undone then... will try and remember to do it later. Cheers. --kingboyk 17:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Done. --kingboyk 20:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Behind The Screens"

I reverted the addition of a Youtube link because Wikipedia is not a directory of Youtube videos. However, the video itself is quite intriguing... seems to be (so far) a behind the scenes/making of from The KLF/Tammy video shoot. Anyone know any more about the video and it's origins? --kingboyk (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Picture scans from pics.klf-communications.net

Thread moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_KLF#Images. --kingboyk (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KLF Communications

I've merged the KLF Communications section into this article (and will copyedit further later on). This is because a combined discography/KLF Communications article didn't go down well at Featured Lists. I think it wouldn't make a great standalone article either. However, if it doesn't fit here or it makes the article too long let's hear about it... --kingboyk (talk) 12:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Doherty?

Has anyone thought about mantioning the 2006 KLF/Pete Doherty rumours? There's plenty of sites still active and discussing it. Forgive me if this ideas been brought up and subsequently rubbished already :) Chebbs (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KLF?

What does KLF stand for? :arny (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • From the Illuminatus! section:

There is no definitive explanation of The KLF's name, nor of the origin of 'K' in the names of the K Foundation and 2K. KLF has been variously reported as being an acronym for "Kopyright Liberation Front", "Kallisti Liberation Front" and "Kings of the Low Frequencies".

Wickethewok (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)