i'm Someone Else From Here. i'm also someone who could care less if
the mix is perfect if the vibe is there. i'm all for seeing jeff (or
d. wynn or practically anyone from detroit) cue and correct in the
mix... slam it in there and make it work. just make the walls and
collective butts shake while doing so.
since this review has grown legs maybe i would have reconsidered
using the word 'perfect'. it's not that rich was so mechanically
perfect. i don't care about that. it's that once jeff got on i
realized how bad the audio was. now a lot of people (including some
close friends... ;)) are probably going to want to give me sh!t for
being a pro-digital person. and while i sorta am, that's not what i
mean. whatever was going on with jeff clipping the sound system,
some very dirty records, some badly fumbled mixes and ear-splitting
EQ choices, all the air went out of the party for me. i love
watching jeff and i agree with a lot of what was said about rich (tho
i wil reiterate that he still has that richie hawtin way of making a
terrible record interesting). it's not that a sample rate or
whizbang widget wasn't up to snuff; it's that this night jeff and i
didn't click and that IMO he's had far better nights.
ps. - thanks for the capitalization fixes, greg. :P
On Dec 4, 2006, at 7:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find alot of hard techno fans are overly concerned with the
mechanics of a performance. Sure they're important, but those are
quanitative things like the number of unprecise mixes or what the
bitrate of the files were. When people focus on the aspects of a
performance that are immediately measurable they often miss out on
it's qualitative aspects. Things that separate an artist from an
engineer. The engineer is concerned only with The small concrete
part of the world he can put into a box and measure, ignoring the
rest. The artist attempts to transcend the mechanical in the hopes
of channelling a bit of that beautifully unmeasurable vastness that
surrounds the immediate and concrete. To me that's what it means to
be 'soulful' and play with emotion.
I definetely did enjoy hawtin's set and the l'il louis I Called U
acapella over spastik was a nice finish. Still I found myself bored
and uninspired especially when compared to Mills. It just wasn't
very funky and had little variation or risk. In my experience,
Hawtin's pounder sets (though this one was less pounder-more
minimal than when he came to SF two years ago) tend to inspire the
sorts of people who would rather head bang than jack your body. I
know Hawtin is a diverse performer but his formula the last three
times I've seen him just doesn't do it for me.
Quoting Greg Earle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
"kent williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well even if you like Rich's sets these days, by their very nature,
there's not much to say about them -- minimal innit? And if you
don't
like Rich's sets these days, the less said the better.
On 12/1/06, Greg Earle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- Greg (Who - along with several list lurkers - is amused
that
nothing was said about Rich's set)
I'll just quote Someone Else From Here's review, posted elsewhere:
"Rich was perfect. Even when he screwed up once. Played a lot of
whoknowswhat that sounds like sh!t when other ppl play it, then at
the
end played "Pullover," "Spastik," bits of "I Called U" and
"Transition,"
some crazy new Carl Craig track. Killed it.
Mills' first record was so dirty it wouldn't track. Then he
trainwrecked some. Then he played The Bells. Transitions awful,
EQ'ing painful, records you've heard 8,000 times.
And I hate to say it but after 2.5 hrs of digital perfection from
Richie, Jeff's records sounded terrible. He may have been pushing
the
mixer cuz I heard some clipping but overall the sound quality
difference between he and Hawtin was remarkable. I couldn't be on
the
main floor when he was playing.
But he was still pretty good. ;]"
Like I said - funny how different people can have different reactions
to hearing exactly the same music ;)
- Greg
