Not a WORD from you Marsel. You and you European musicians whose quality rivals or exceeds the majority of Detroit's output in the past few years need to stay put. We don't need you at any festival from herein. Just try and cross the Detroit River and we'll have the National Guard waiting for you. Our president promised us no more immigration and by god we're gonna get it.
Kindly (but watch it), Rob -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 1:33 PM To: 313 Subject: Re: (313) a question regarding DEMF and the history of Detroit techno damn damn! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Theakston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "313" <313@hyperreal.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 7:13 PM Subject: RE: (313) a question regarding DEMF and the history of Detroit techno > I'm just miffed off that Rick Astley was overlooked for the lineup yet > again. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 12:13 PM > To: 313 > Subject: Re: (313) a question regarding DEMF and the history of Detroit > techno > > Sing the blues tom...lets stay still and not move, lets stick to the same > sound and not alter our train of thought to move this world!! > Whomever makes the music that moves you, is not an issue. To me anyhow! > Lets dance > > Ben > > On 17/5/06 4:47 pm, "Thomas D. Cox, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> so, when richie and crew put the "new sound of detroit" stamps on >> their white label records, causing all kinds of controversy about >> music not from detroit taking credit for what they did, do you think >> that this year's DEMF is EXACTLY what people were concerned about? the >> only detroit artist seriously getting his due this year is rob hood >> (though it is about d*mn time). now we have hawtin again in the middle >> of things, closing out a festival filled with white european techno >> artists while local detroit artists are outsiders to their own >> festival. does anyone now feel like maybe those concerned initially >> back in the day were well founded? >> >> tom > > >
