Talk:The KLF

The KLF was named best article in the Humanities & Culture class at Wikimania 2006

Archives
December 2002–July 2005 July 2005–April 2006 April 2006–September 2006

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)