lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <313@hyperreal.org>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: RE: [313] blueprint "ENCOUNTERS" {classifications}
>
> In a message dated 10/13/00 5:36:23 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << of course, classifications exist b
In a message dated 10/13/00 5:36:23 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< of course, classifications exist because they give people convenient
and simple ways to communicate ideas to one another (albeit sometimes at
the cost of accuracy). >>
from what I can gather in newsgroups and lists, "hard tec
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 2:35 PM
Subject: RE: [313] blueprint "ENCOUNTERS" {classifications}
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, John Shipman wrote:
>
> > probably depends who your talking to. "tribal' to one won't be "tribal"
to
> > another. i find tha
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, John Shipman wrote:
> probably depends who your talking to. "tribal' to one won't be "tribal" to
> another. i find that lots of times the lines between the classifications of
> this and that get blurred. you could definitely use both of these terms to
> describe ho, outline an
At 14:52 10/13/2000 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm listening to blueprint "ENCOUNTERS" with tracks by Oliver Ho, Outline and
James Ruskin.Is that stuff considered to be "hard techno" or "tribal"?
None of the above. Just techno (imho).
I've got the CD as well and find it very relaxing (
probably depends who your talking to. "tribal' to one won't be "tribal" to
another. i find that lots of times the lines between the classifications of
this and that get blurred. you could definitely use both of these terms to
describe ho, outline and ruskin. personally i would just like to describe
