The KLF burn a million quid : My theory...

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

OK, it's time for my theory about the burning of a million quid...

When Bill and Jimmy were doing their 'anti-art' thing, various of their 'scultures' were wads of money, in some form or other. On returning one load, which was one thousand pounds nailed to a board, they had to invoke their insurance to pay for the reprinting of the cash.

So....

If you take a million quid out of the bank, and prearrange the
1) destruction of same
2) an independant witness to show no-one 'making off with less than unrecognisably charred banknotes..'
3) Documentary evidence of destruction..
Then the money can be replaced simply by reprinting it.

I'm amazed no-one has even considered this scenario, unless there is a lot of people in on the scam that are sworn to secrecy...

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 08:33 (twenty-two years ago)

I thought destroying currency was a punishable offense in every country.

― Baaderist (Fabfunk), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 08:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Without knowing too much about the incident beyond the executive summary - don't mints destroy money from time to time? you know, take old bills out of circulation and destroy them? Could not a million quid of money that was going to be destroyed anyway have been part of the ploy?

― gspm, Wednesday, 15 October 2003 09:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, the government was totally in on the KLF's plan. (!!)

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 09:23 (twenty-two years ago)

I remember hearing some nonsense about salvaging the silver threads from bank notes and these being redeemable. Having met Bill Drummond once I find it much more likely that he actually did burn a million quid. My hero.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 09:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Surely nobody really believes this any more?

― Dr. C (Dr. C), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 09:41 (twenty-two years ago)

believes what?

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 09:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Assuming it was real, was it grossly immoral to burn a million quid, considering what could be done with the money?

― Two-Faced January (Two-Faced January), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 09:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Any more so that chattering mindlessly for years on Internet discussion groups?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 10:01 (twenty-two years ago)

how is that wasting money?

― the surface noise (electricsound), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 10:03 (twenty-two years ago)

and who are you anyway, trife? jeez.

― the surface noise (electricsound), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 10:03 (twenty-two years ago)

It was proven by science that he did not burn a million quid - the ashes produced were just not enough to have come from a million quid.

However, the IDEA of burning a million quid is so intriguing that it doesn't really matter whether he did it or not. Ah, if only Bill D could find a way to make money off the ideas in other people's heads ... I'm sure he would.

― kate (kate), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 10:04 (twenty-two years ago)

My theory is more about what they actually did, rather than the philosophical nature of what the activity poses.

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 10:05 (twenty-two years ago)

the million quid stunt was a fair bit less interesting than his records or his books.

― the surface noise (electricsound), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 10:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Assuming it was real, was it grossly immoral to burn a million quid, considering what could be done with the money?

is it less immoral than blowing the money on cocaine, which is what rock stars normally do? It was their money, they can do what they like with it. Their burning or not burning a million quid would not have increased the amount of resources there are in the world.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 10:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Surely nobody really believes this any more?

Surely nobody really cares about this any more?

― Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 10:27 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm leaning towards thinking that blowing a million quid on cocaine would be a bit immoral, yes. A few hundred quid or a few thousand quid, no. It's true that burning or not burning a million £ would not impact on actual resources in the world. But if you have a million £, you have the power to direct where it goes. And if your decision is to direct it into a silly performance art project, then I think on balance that's a bit immoral. Yes of course, "it's their money they can do what they like with it", but that still doesn't absolve of them of all moral responsibility, does it?

― Two-Faced January (Two-Faced January), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 10:29 (twenty-two years ago)

"how is that wasting money?"

think about the resources necessary to initiate a TCP/IP session, followed all down the line. the points of manufacture of the plastic, silicon; coal-burning (or nuclear) power plants that keep the telephone lines and fiber optics running and the maintenance necessary for your local power grid; the air-conditioning req'd to keep the server farms cool (directly responsible for a large part of recent power-grid demand spikes); the trees that make the handbooks that teach the Cisco network gnomes how to keep the routers configured; the trucks that bring all these things to where they need to go

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 10:32 (twenty-two years ago)

and that's just for the kitten pictures alone!!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 10:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Your Internet discussion group analogy doesn't work, because increased use of the Internet in general is ultimately a wealth generator, i.e. it will eventually increase global resources. And participating in a discussion group amounts to exchanging minute amounts money for leisure - sounds reasonable to me. Whereas burning a million quid does nothing to generate further resources and directs a huge sum of money into a pretty childish "art" project, when it could have done something more useful.

― Two-Faced January (Two-Faced January), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 10:42 (twenty-two years ago)

At the risk of mythbuilding - one rumour I read (think it was in the Big Issue years ago) was that they'd been involved in something not quite legal, had been passed of load of marked notes in a sting by the DTI or something, and needed to get rid of it. Or something.

― steve w, Wednesday, 15 October 2003 10:55 (twenty-two years ago)

danny kelly (then editor of Q) 'trousered' some of the cash, and has admitted as much many times in print. i think it was 20,000 he took.
that was on the day of the (96 ?) turner prize.

― piscesboy, Wednesday, 15 October 2003 11:57 (twenty-two years ago)

finally an excuse to arrest the twunt

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 12:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Two-Faced January, your argument about "global resources" "increasing" doesn't work, because the earth's natural resources never increase unless they are mined out of the earth. And in that case, who does this increase benefit?

Who do the productivity increases enabled by the Internet (chortle) benefit? The 25-cent-a-day assembly-line workers who solder together the crap that makes "R U Hot Or Not" function??

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 15:21 (twenty-two years ago)

"Global resources" does not equal natural resources. Communication is a quantifiable, saleable resource that has been dramatically changed and souped up by the advent of the Internet. The Internet creates new commercial niches, new means of expoitation, for sure, but also new means of generating wealth. Burning money does none of those things.

― Two-Faced January (Two-Faced January), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 15:27 (twenty-two years ago)

So you disagree that this conversation, by your moral standards, are an enormous waste of the earth's resources?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 16:20 (twenty-two years ago)

IS, even

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 16:45 (twenty-two years ago)

my point is - money does not create wealth, money is just a token of wealth.

lots of people spend money in unproductive ways... do you condemn all unproductive uses of money, or merely that of the KLF?

― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 19:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I believe the KLF used the story of "we burned a million pounds as a politcal statement" to cover the funneling of one million pounds to the Shining Path.

― fletrejet, Wednesday, 15 October 2003 19:23 (twenty-two years ago)

My only criticism of the act is that they should have used dollars. It would have had the same conceptual impact, but they would have saved a bundle!

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 19:27 (twenty-two years ago)

new means of generating wealth

I think Tracer's point was that, beyond digging up money (essentially), there is no such thing. Where does the money come from for this 'new wealth'? There is X amount of money/wealth in the world: mints printing nmore money does not make more wealth. It's all about shifting the money about.

I will refrain from making the next logically Marxist point.

― Jim Robinson (Original Miscreant), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 20:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Sub-point: is it more or less annoying that the whole thing was potentially a scam and that the project, like the music, being more *rubbish* actually makes it *better*?

― Jim Robinson (Original Miscreant), Wednesday, 15 October 2003 21:01 (twenty-two years ago)

If he'd used Australian dollars he'd have had ample spare change to catch a taxi home afterwards.

― steve, Thursday, 16 October 2003 02:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Hasn't it occurred to anyone that they may have burned Monopoly money?

― colin s barrow (colin s barrow), Thursday, 16 October 2003 02:22 (twenty-two years ago)

that would have been even MORE radical!! (because it would have been purely symbolic; not sure what the point of doing it w/real money was)

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 16 October 2003 10:33 (twenty-two years ago)

It was proven by science that he did not burn a million quid - the ashes produced were just not enough to have come from a million quid.

I've actually seen the documentary film they shot of burning the money (from what I've heard, it isn't in existence any more). Even if it wasn't a million quid, it was a hell load of money: the film lasted for an hour, and it consisted of nothing but Drummond and Cauty throwing bundles of cash into the flames. Of course, it could've been fake money, but the guy who shot the film was present at the viewing, and he swore it was for real. Also, wasn't there several journalists there to witness the whole thing?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 16 October 2003 12:08 (twenty-two years ago)

I have no real objection to Bill Drummond or Jim Cauty or KLF but I have never been in the slightest bit interested in whether they burned a million pounds or whether they didn't burn a million pounds - I can honestly say I don't see what is interesting about it.

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 16 October 2003 12:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Imagine waking up every morning for the rest of your life and going 'My God, why did I burn all that money?'. I mean, I get annoyed with myself for spending money on a cab when I could've caught a bus.

― colin s barrow (colin s barrow), Thursday, 16 October 2003 20:04 (twenty-two years ago)

I believe they did it but so what, it's only a million quid.

How many bands have spent that much on advertising?
Loads.

― mei (mei), Friday, 17 October 2003 10:15 (twenty-two years ago)

fifteen years pass...

Impossible to avoid clicking on a thread of the form "X : My theory ... "

They never explained what the root of all evil was, did they.

― lukas, Tuesday, 26 March 2019 21:38 (six years ago)

Money?

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 26 March 2019 22:39 (six years ago)

Not according to them

― lukas, Tuesday, 26 March 2019 23:02 (six years ago)

Thank you for checking out my theory

― Mark G, Wednesday, 27 March 2019 22:26 (six years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.