Certainly doesn't annoy me. Makes me imagine music I want to produce... even if its not an all encompassing definition of techno (not that such a thing meaningfully exists).
ScottV. > To begin with, I am not sure how it ended up on that site, but it's kinda > cool. I did the interview a few months ago for an R&B magazine and it fitted > the context since he had just performed at the DEMF. He is actually working > on a new album of 'techno doo-wop'. > Just last week I finally remembered to send the quote to a good friend of > mine in Detroit and he circulated it maybe. I then saw it on a Skruff > newsletter I got. George had never toured Australia before. I am not even > sure if he has talked to Australian media before. I knew people here, > especially younger people, would be interested in his thoughts on techno > generally (as well as hip-hop) and so that was on my list of questions - > that quote was a useful device to draw a link. > > George came across as very mellow, and was far from annoyed, he doesn't seem > to get annoyed by too much. I don't believe in asking veteran artists purely > about their past (he says he doesn't recall much about his anyway) as it > then assumes people are musuem pieces and have nothing else to offer. If > anything, that can annoy artists. > > From Derrick's standpoint, I think in interviews he has always been someone > who carefully thinks about what he says because he knows it's for > prosperity. It's more being misquoted that gets to him. The quote is part of > techno's mythology, so if it dies, techno dies. Does that quote really annoy > anyone? I would be interested to know. I think there's more annoying things > - like being marginalised by the likes of Sasha and Digweed, or people > assuming that if you're techno you will play a certain kind of techno, or > being musically stereotyped, or whatever.
