I think their credibility came from subversion. They sampled acts which had no credibility (Glitter, Petula Clark, Whitney) and transformed them into something which wasn't kitch, but revelled in itself, made a point and was great fun. It was undeniable that the pure trance and stadium house records were all great, too, and that Chill Out and Space were perfect. What threatened them as a credible force was the fact that it seemed like they were doing everything as a publicity stunt, but they got out of it by shutting up shop and burning all their money. You can't give success the middle finger better than that. In fact, they were effectively a punk band. It was pure DIY ethic. They didn't even bother with 3 chords, they just nicked bits of other people's records. The fact is they burnt a million quid. In the history of music I don't think there's every been such a fuck you punk style statement against capitalism and "The Man." Add that attitude to the great music, and that's why I'm still here. Sorry, got a bit carried away there! Del -----Original Message----- From: klf-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:klf-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Jon Doe Sent: 01 September 2003 18:24 To: All bound for Mu-Mu Land. Subject: Re: [KLF] credibility vs success hmm, i think it was just bad wording, not that bad either. Credible? Not as 'great' musicians and songwriters but their output was credible in some ways and not in others. Kylie said to Jason, Tammy etc. I have learned a lot from this list but i no doubt have assumptions that are wrong or comments you dont agree with. Credibility sometimes, integrety more likely most of the time. Jon Doe ----- Original Message ----- From: KLF- gyerek <klfboy@hotmail.com> To: <klf@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:16 AM Subject: Re: [KLF] credibility vs success