I think that this brings up a very strong point that I tend to discuss with other music geeks, like me. When is too much technical focus too much? It seems that Rich, while a great dj, seems to have focused on the technical aspect of his sets, whereas he used to really focus on the crowd and the track selection. He was never a bad dj, but his sets used to seem a bit more human, inspirational. Sure, Mills will wreck a few times, but he is always trying something new with the music, using that emotion as a catalyst. Plus, he usually has three records going at once, cutting between them in a frenzy, like a wizard :p. Just my .02.
Joel ----- Original Message ---- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 313@hyperreal.org Sent: Monday, December 4, 2006 9:33:59 PM Subject: Re: (313) Mills' Last Weekend Tracklist Update 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
