While I agree Robin, I'm not trying to make this into a "year zero" thing, no point really. What I'm interested in doing is getting a good list together of the players, doing a mix of the tunes and adding some biog info.
We could always do a mix of tunes that influenced the first wave, there's plenty of references points and I know there's a couple of the early players "lurking" on the list, should be to hard. And if we through in a copy of Dan's book and a couple of articles for good measure, it should make it easy for people to get into the History and therefore push the present into the future. Alan is defo first wave in my book, he played tunes of techno on his radio show back in the day so I'd place in the first wave for this reason. I think we should include people who also made a difference, not just DJ/Musicians but people who supported "the movement". 25/7/03 9:46 AM robin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > you know what, i've always thought the use of the term 'waves' when > talking about detroit techno was a bit wrong headed and i'd not figured > out why i've thought this until now... > > the problems i have with this are that firstly i've always thought that the > wave > thing was used by people who had heard of Tofflers work but hadn't read > it (but knew that it had some bearing on detroit techno) and more > importantly, and the idea of the one wave mix illustrates this, that at > any one point the music dj'd by a dj of any particular wave would have > been a huge array of music up to that point, so the context of the new > 'wave' of music (see i'm using the term now...) would be completely lost. > > another obvious problem is the fact that a lot of the producers listed in > each wave are still going and i'm sure they hate being labelled with waves > as it dismisses any new stuff they come up with as 'old-hat' > > > boy do i sound like a grumpy b*****d today..... > > still, nice to see music discussion on the list. > > robin... > > > >
