September 2003 - KLF - mailman.xmission.com

Re: close-minded
by our.webstuff＠verizon.net 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

> Does it mean I'm closed minded because I choose to change the > channel if he pops up with a public service ad telling me again? you assume you know what he's going to tell you, but you have no idea what information he has to relay if you tune him out maybe you think you've even seen that particular ad before, and it could turn out that it has a different second half with news you've never heard before about something you didn't even know he was going to bring up so yes, it does mean you're close-minded, because there is no possible way for you to know exactly what he is going to tell you before he says it

1 0

definition of a "bait and switch"
by our.webstuff＠verizon.net 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

> It's not being close minded or ignorant at all. For example, when I > grab a Coke, I want to drink a Coke. I don't want to open it up and > find someone has switched it with Sprite, Apple Juice, or Vodka. I think you're being somewhat disingenuous, but in any event that is an incorrect analogy that is a completely different situation than any previously discussed - at no time, do I remember, someone saying that, for example (to use mccartney again) they had gone to a concert, and INSTEAD of singing, had endured a 2 or 3 hour lecture THAT is the definition of a "bait and switch" and in no case has anyone claimed this happened to them what people seem to be complaing about is more like (to alter your incorrect analogy) buying a coke, drinking it, and then noticing on the label that it's now enriched with vitamin C it's NOT a "bait and switch" because you GOT the coke, and you GOT the concert - you just got something IN ADDITION to what you paid for and in any event the choice is up to you - now that you KNOW what's to be included you can take it or leave it in the future or lobby to change it, but why someone would complain about getting something free is beyond me :) is refusing free things a republikan thing? > You are also just assuming no one is as "well informed" as you are. I'm not assuming anything - it's kind of like what I was saying before: artists don't know exactly which persons in their audience need the lecture - presumably, the ones that don't need it shouldn't mind hearing it again, out of recognition that the word needs to get around (and if one doesn't want to be lectured like a child, one should stop acting like one)

1 0

Blur & KLF
by James Cauty 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Blur on Bills old record label Food ? Bill and another dude (was it Balfe?) set that record label up and i think Bill sold his half to the other one...

2 1

Re: [KLF] Re: mccartney and streisand (!)
by TheMgnt＠aol.com 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

> but again, that's not the same thing - streisand isn't "taking" your > money thru the TV screen and then saying it oh no! and I thought you were SO CLOSE to getting it, too! :) Because she is no longer being an artist! The point of this discussion is that you said the artist's job is to "speak out". I thought I laid it out fairly cleanly when I said McCartney can sing about animal rights (ie: using his art to make his point) but as soon as he starts to lecture me about it (rather doing do so via his art ie: music) he is then using the fame I gave him by paying him for his art, to lecture me. Streisand isn't using her art to tell me to conserve energy, but, again, she is using the fame and fortune we (well, certainly not me! :) gave her to push her views on us. Babs makes a cd. We buy it. She "takes" the money (perhaps accepts is a better word?), then says "thank you. Now let me tell you why you should vote Democrat in the next election." She's not using her art to speak out there, is she? She's taking my money then telling me how to live my life. Which was Dan's whole point (i believe, it's certainly mine). And just because I tell her (via the tv) to shut up doesn't make me close minded. You're really stretching to make me (not personally, but the consumer who doesn't want to listen) look ignorant. Perhaps I've already made up my mind on the issue and don't feel I need to hear more? Perhaps I really don't care. McCartney has been telling me for years not to wear leather and eat steak for dinner. Does it mean I'm closed minded because I choose to change the channel if he pops up with a public service ad telling me again? I hardly think so. -paul

2 1

Re: mccartney and streisand (!)
by our.webstuff＠verizon.net 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

> Thinking about it, tho, perhaps Dan meant in a wider view. Like > turning on > the tv and seeing Barbara Streisand telling me to lose the clothes > dryer and > hang my clothes to dry on a line in the backyard and conserve energy. > Sure she > has a right to do that, but we as the public also have the right to > yell at > the tv screen "aw shut the hell up." but again, that's not the same thing - streisand isn't "taking" your money thru the TV screen and then saying it what I'm saying is: instead of complaining about the "lecture", why not listen to it? not wanting to be educated is the definition of close-mindedness for example, why would someone bother to yell at the TV to shut up when drying your clothes outside instead of wasting energy on a dryer is a GOOD IDEA? sure, you have the RIGHT to, but why refuse to listen just because you CAN? and why take it BEYOND your own personal want of ignorance to the point where you have to speak out AGAINST "lectures"? isn't it enough to ignore the stuff you don't want to let yourself know? you have to attempt to keep everyone has ignorant as yourself? (not "you" as in you personally, paul)

1 0

Re: [KLF] Re: re: missing the point
by TheMgnt＠aol.com 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

> I listen to a lot of music by artists whom have decidedly strong > political views but in all honesty, i could give a flying fuck what they > think of the world situation or public policy of this government or that. I > watch CNN for my news, i listen to music for aesthetic values. Exactly. McCartney, in my example, isn't being an artist if he uses the concert I paid to attend as an excuse to lecture me on what I should eat for dinner. He wants to sing a block of songs about it, ok, but I'm paying him to entertain me with his art, not to be a spokeman. (I don't mean this to be a big McCartney thing. I'm just using him as an example as I'm most familiar with him and his politics, and I feel most would be aware as well) > everyone is free to express views but don't be a sheep > and follow someone just because they are popular. Truer words are rarely spoken. -paul

2 1

Re: Re: "denial" and common sense
by our.webstuff＠verizon.net 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

> From: Loki Ambrodious von Esling <necco(a)relst8.net> > Date: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:35:56 PM America/New_York > To: "All bound for Mu-Mu Land." <klf(a)mailman.xmission.com> > Subject: Re: [KLF] Re: "denial" and common sense > Reply-To: "All bound for Mu-Mu Land." <klf(a)mailman.xmission.com> > > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 12:12:41PM -0400, our.webstuff(a)verizon.net > wrote: >> >> >>> I for one, an immigrant to the US from the former East Germany, am >>> tired of being harrassed and called names for being a republican and >>> not denying everything the govt says. >> >> >> people REALLY call you names because you don't disagree with >> EVERYTHING >> the govt says? >> >> I think that's a lie - I do not believe that you are called names >> because you don't deny everything the government says >> >> however, there are plenty of things that the unelected amerikan regime >> says and does that are quite clearly dishonest, and if you don't >> recognize it (whether because of your own ignorance or your partisan >> politics) you should be aware that you are in the wrong >> >> why don't you give me an example of a cause you've championed, that >> your beloved republikans have supported, that people "harrased and >> called names" for supporting >> > > First of all you're proving my point already with constant personal > attacks, name calling, and generalizations of "republicanism." EXCEPT - I'm NOT proving your point because I HAVEN'T personally attacked you. I'm saying that your claim that you are called names because you don't deny everything the gov't says is false. I believe you are lying. I think that, because your basic argument isn't good enough, you must include unsubstantiated hyperbole instead of facts in fact, you proved MY point because you couldn't even give an instance of what you claim happens to you ever actually occurring and how can you accuse me of "name-calling"? when did THAT happen? I think your accusations are only designed to deflect attention from the fact that YOUR replies are actually "personal attacks" and "name-calling" > And you're replacing > "c's" with "k's" is dumb as well. see what I mean? :)

1 0

"criticized for what you believe"
by our.webstuff＠verizon.net 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

>> artists don't know exactly which persons in their audience need the >> lecture - presumably, the ones that don't need it shouldn't mind >> hearing it again, out of recognition that the word needs to get around >> >> so, if one doesn't want to be lectured like a child, one should stop >> acting like one >> > > Please, you have such a one-sided negative view of the US and world > that I > don't think you have the right to explain why artists do such things. please explain where you have found ANY evidence that I have a "negative" view of the US and the world when I call the current administration of the US unelected, that's not opinion, that's fact maybe deep down inside you KNOW it's wrong, but can't bring yourself to say it out loud to your fellow republikans but I certainly haven't said until now that anyone who supports the US constitution, by definition, would have to consider the current unelected regime to be "wrong" PLUS - what would ANY view one has of the US have to do with one's ability to explain why artists create? let alone, their "RIGHT" to explain it?? how about sticking to the actual discussion: if you don't want to be "criticized for what you believe" then take a good hard look at what you "believe" and what you support because if you can't stand criticism to the point where you think you're above it or beyond it, then YOU ARE THE PROBLEM > I guess what i'm trying to say is it's one thing to express one's > opinions about a particular issue in thier music, but it's another > thing to basicly change the focus of their project into slamming > whatever's the hot topic and expecting the fanbase to just accept it > and agree. basically the answer I predicted in KLF Digest, Vol 7, Issue 38: "I just demand that the artist I like read my mind and give some warning that something I don't like is coming" ;)

1 0

RE: missing the point
by Martin Bradbury 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

Chuck D once said that in the energy of a live show, the message getting lost doesnt matter because if you are at the show youve got the record and all you have to do to get the message is read the lyrics. Personally I dont care if Bono has a fucking sermon in the middle of a gig. The only time I object to mid gig preaching is if the artist patronises us. A lot of bands dont know what they are condoning anyway, alternative America was so fast to jump on the "West Memphis Three" bandwagon half of them probably dont know what its about. Its like teenagers wearing Che Guevarra shirts, they dont know what he did they just know hes a Rage Against The Machine cover star.

1 0

Re: re: missing the point
by our.webstuff＠verizon.net 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

> where does one draw the line really. at what point do you require > "artists" > to censor themselves and become merely "entertainers"? I, for one, DON'T require that - however, anyone that does, it seems to me, would have to answer to that question: "at the point just before they offend or bore me" > where do these consumer > "rights" come from? it seems pretty clear that everyone has the right NOT to buy something from an artist/entertainer whose views they don't appreciate > who dictates what is expected or unexpected in a public > performance situation? is the content of a performance situation the > province > of the artist or the spectator? good question! in part, it's determined by the audience and their feedback (applause, booing) in amerika, it's also now largely determined neither by artist nor spectators, but by corporate entities such as clearchannel - the "dixie chicks" situation being a good example of this > Right. I realize I forgot what I was trying to get to. Art is really > about > self expression. Webstuff feels that Art is to "speak out". Why > can't the > artist just paint a painting expressing how much he loves his wife? > Write a > sonnet because of a particularly beautiful sunset? Why does he have > to make an > antiwar statement? while I DO feel that the role of the artist is to speak out, I also recognize those other things you mention are legitimate expressions it just depends on how you look at it - in particularly ugly times such as these, a poem or painting about beauty IS "speaking out" > There's nothing wrong with McCartney, for example, writing a song > speaking > out about vegetarianism. I don't have to agree with it but he has the > right to > do it. But what I think Dan was trying to say, and what I was trying > to > explain to Webstuff, is that if I go to a McCartney concert and he > starts overdoing > it then I have the right to be annoyed. > I didn't pay $135 to hear a 20 > minute speech about animal cruelty and have him try to educate me. > Not that he > ever did this but I think you see what I'm trying to say, or at least > trying to > interpret what Dan meant when he wrote "and then instead of > entertaining me, > lecturing me like a child about the state of the world." To be fair, > however, > McCartney does put his money where his mouth is, but not all > entertainers, > sorry, artists do. there's a couple problems with that example, however (besides the obvious "not that he ever did this") I mean, would someone interested in mccartney really be surprised by a veggie lecture, considering the mccartneys used to have a line of veggie meals available at your local grocer? maybe the reason people are getting lectured like children about the state of the world is because we've acted like spoiled children and let it get so bad and, confirming this, complaining about having to get lectured is spoiled and childish artists don't know exactly which persons in their audience need the lecture - presumably, the ones that don't need it shouldn't mind hearing it again, out of recognition that the word needs to get around so, if one doesn't want to be lectured like a child, one should stop acting like one > Hope that made sense. it did - it's not that I didn't understand what he was trying to say, it's that I hadn't gotten to that part yet, trying to clear up some (mis)understandings in other parts of the (mis)statement ;)

4 3