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

Reply via email to