paul, where does one draw the line really. at what point do you require "artists" to censor themselves and become merely "entertainers"? where do these consumer "rights" come from? 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? i tend towards the belief that it is the perogative of the artist to express themselves however they wish. after all, its they who are putting themselves out there. every thing they do on stage is a risk far greater than the money i paid and after all didnt i pay to watch them to express themselves while i stood by (or maybe danced) in the shadows. i myself would be very disappointed if the cultural workers i admire reduced themselves to bland singing and dancing marionettes in order to avoid offending the passive consumer with thier freedom of expression. surprise me. give me some passion, some spirit, some commitment, some "artistry", even if sometimes i dont agree with it, rather than "entertainment" by focus group. at this very moment i'm listening to johnny cash, now i dont agree with the mans religious conviction but it would of been a sad sorry thing if he'd not recorded, released or performed his gospel material because he risked offending me. bringing this back to the jamms/klf. looking at the ouvre chronologically. from the very first releases back in 1987, the content in the lyrics was overtly political. listen again to "all you need is love" and tell me thats not a political song. xe