of course he does. every day he loses a synchophant.
/flame on/ On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Blackman, Ryan (UKEKT) wrote: > Mills doesn't need to "blatanly self promote". > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 02 March 2004 10:17 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Brendan Nelson > Cc: Ken Odeluga; 313 > Subject: RE: (313) Mills > > > I can see the point of a commercially available DVD; I just didn't see the > point of him using the DVD in a club, unless he's getting RSI and needs the > odd break. Or is it blatant self-promotion? > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 8:09 PM > To: Brendan Nelson > Cc: Robert Taylor; Ken Odeluga; 313 > Subject: RE: (313) Mills > > > from a bizznass stand point, DVDs are definately the future of music > media. 2003 was the first year that DVDs sold better than CDs in the US. > If you walk into any major electronic/music/media store, you'll see the > DVDs right in front. and since the pricepoint has now dropped below $20 > for most DVDs, they're the new impulse buy for people who would have > bought CDs just a few years ago. > > And while you can pirate a DVD, most people don't have the HD > space/connection speed/patients to do it. So I'd expect a lot more DVDs > from your favorite DJs in the future. > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Brendan Nelson wrote: > > > I don't know if there's a point as such - it's a bit of a gimmick, > > really, that he used to try to build up anticipation/suspense in > > the crowd before he came on. But basically it's a product he's > > trying to sell and as I've said before I wouldn't mind at all if > > more DJs released DVDs like that; the gimmick of using it at the > > start of the set is going to wear off pretty quickly though. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 01 March 2004 12:13 > > > To: Brendan Nelson; Ken Odeluga; 313 > > > Subject: RE: (313) Mills > > > > > > > > > I still fail to see the point of the DVD thing. Either I'm > > > stupid, or Mills' explanation for it is rubbish. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Brendan Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 12:07 PM > > > To: Ken Odeluga; 313 > > > Subject: RE: (313) Mills > > > > > > > > > While Saunderson was better than I expected, it didn't really > > > blow me away and like a few other people I was a bit confused > > > as to why Mills came on so late - which meant that I was > > > getting unfairly impatient towards the end of Saunderson's > > > set. It was effective and crowd-pleasing but nothing > > > ground-breaking really. > > > > > > I was really impressed by Mills, though, I have to say. Maybe > > > it's because it's a while since I've seen him, or because I > > > was swept up in the spirit of the night, but he seemed to me > > > to be very assured and on-form, and he played quite a lot of > > > tracks that I hadn't heard before but that were pretty > > > intriguing; the 909 stuff was pretty rude as well. And even > > > though I know this is serious flamebait, I actually think the > > > DVD thing at the start worked... *duck!* > > > > > > One of the things I worry about sometimes is that the world > > > of techno will hit a point where all new music is basically > > > schranz and if a DJ is going to really rock the crowd he/she > > > will have to basically play ancient classics. Periodically, > > > though, you hear a set that helps to persuade you that > > > there's still development and evolution of the sound going on > > > (Surgeon's set at Turnmills a few weeks back sounded like > > > just that sort of thing actually). So yeah, I thought Mills > > > did a really good job and he did exceed my expectations in > > > all honesty. The 2001 stuff was nice visual dressing but I'm > > > not so much of a "visuals" man and didn't really notice it > > > being "soundtracked" in any particular way... was nice to > > > look at though! > > > > > > Brendan > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Ken Odeluga [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: 01 March 2004 11:56 > > > > To: Brendan Nelson; 313 > > > > Subject: RE: (313) Mills > > > > > > > > > > > > Well what did we all think of Lost then? Especially Mills and > > > > Saunderson. > > > > Come on, let's 'ave opinions ... > > > > > > > > k > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > > > >From: Brendan Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 11:45 AM > > > > >To: 313 > > > > >Subject: RE: (313) Mills > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Yeah, it was a pretty surreal moment on Saturday when I saw that > > > > >in the magazine! I was on the lookout for a bunch of Absolutely > > > > >Fabulous-style fashion journos looking out of their depth at Lost, > > > > >but without success... > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > >> From: Tom Churchill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >> Sent: 01 March 2004 11:47 > > > > >> To: 313 > > > > >> Subject: (313) Mills > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Did anyone other UK list-members spot the Jeff Mills mention > > > > >> in the fashion > > > > >> pages of the Guardian's Weekend magazine on Saturday? > > > > Quite amusing: > > > > >> > > > > >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1156729,00.html > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ############################################################## > > > ####################### > > > Note: > > > > > > Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do > > > not necessarily represent > > > those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless > > > specifically stated. This email > > > and any files transmitted are confidential and intended > > > solely for the use of the > > > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have > > > received this email in > > > error, please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Thank You. > > > ############################################################## > > > ####################### > > > > > > > > > ############################################################################ > ######### > Note: > > Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily > represent > those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless specifically stated. > This email > and any files transmitted are confidential and intended solely for the use > of the > individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this > email in > error, please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Thank You. > ############################################################################ > ######### > > > > *************************************************************************************** > Opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and > not Entergy-Koch Trading Limited or its affiliated companies. > This email and any files transmitted with it, including replies > and forwarded copies (which may contain alterations) subsequently > transmitted from the Company, are confidential and solely for the > use of the intended recipient. It may contain material protected by > attorney-client privilege. If you are not listed on the "To" or "Cc" > lines of the original email (or are not the person responsible for > delivering to an intended recipient), then you are not an intended > recipient and have received this email in error. Any use by an > unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. > > If you have received this email in error please notify the IT manager > by telephone on +44 (0)20 7337 8300 or via email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED], attaching this message. Please > then delete this email and all attachments, and destroy any copies > thereof. Thank you. > *************************************************************************************** > >
