With Mills, it has always been, and always will be about the fact that at any time it feels like everything is going to fall apart at any second. I saw him last year in August 2005 at Lost, and many of the people with me thought he was terrible, because he wasn't "tight". Yawn. He was incendiary that night, just like he was in his Golden period of '95 - '97. Lots of mistakes, but the energy was relentless. Techno by its very nature is rigid and fixed, and when someone like Mills adds that rough, human element, it takes it to another level. Hawtin by contrast just seems to be plotting a linear route.
-----Original Message----- From: Joel Gajewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 05 December 2006 16:18 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 313@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: (313) Mills' Last Weekend Tracklist Update 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 For ball-by-ball coverage, instant match reports and analysis follow the Ashes at www.telegraph.co.uk/ashes This e-mail is from Telegraph Media Group Limited - 111 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 0DT registered in England under No 451593. This message, its contents and any attachments to it are private and confidential. Any unauthorised disclosure, use or dissemination of the whole or part of this message (without our prior written consent) is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately. Neither we nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan attachments (if any). The content of this email does not necessarily reflect our views or those of our officers and we take no responsibility for the views of the author. Emails sent and received may be read by people other than the intended recipient and may be monitored to ensure efficient operation of our email systems. Incoming and outgoing telephone calls to our offices may be monitored or recorded for training and quality control purposes and for confirming orders and information.
