I think the DVD is an odd one, it's great to see what he does with his hands but I can't see what a "normal" viewer would get out of it - but hey good luck to him I say...and it sounds like I missed yet another killer gig...
Martin Dust 1/3/04 12:12 PM Brendan [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I don't know if there's a point as such - it's a bit of a gimmick, > really, that he used to try to build up anticipation/suspense in > the crowd before he came on. But basically it's a product he's > trying to sell and as I've said before I wouldn't mind at all if > more DJs released DVDs like that; the gimmick of using it at the > start of the set is going to wear off pretty quickly though. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: 01 March 2004 12:13 >> To: Brendan Nelson; Ken Odeluga; 313 >> Subject: RE: (313) Mills >> >> >> I still fail to see the point of the DVD thing. Either I'm >> stupid, or Mills' explanation for it is rubbish. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Brendan Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 12:07 PM >> To: Ken Odeluga; 313 >> Subject: RE: (313) Mills >> >> >> While Saunderson was better than I expected, it didn't really >> blow me away and like a few other people I was a bit confused >> as to why Mills came on so late - which meant that I was >> getting unfairly impatient towards the end of Saunderson's >> set. It was effective and crowd-pleasing but nothing >> ground-breaking really. >> >> I was really impressed by Mills, though, I have to say. Maybe >> it's because it's a while since I've seen him, or because I >> was swept up in the spirit of the night, but he seemed to me >> to be very assured and on-form, and he played quite a lot of >> tracks that I hadn't heard before but that were pretty >> intriguing; the 909 stuff was pretty rude as well. And even >> though I know this is serious flamebait, I actually think the >> DVD thing at the start worked... *duck!* >> >> One of the things I worry about sometimes is that the world >> of techno will hit a point where all new music is basically >> schranz and if a DJ is going to really rock the crowd he/she >> will have to basically play ancient classics. Periodically, >> though, you hear a set that helps to persuade you that >> there's still development and evolution of the sound going on >> (Surgeon's set at Turnmills a few weeks back sounded like >> just that sort of thing actually). So yeah, I thought Mills >> did a really good job and he did exceed my expectations in >> all honesty. The 2001 stuff was nice visual dressing but I'm >> not so much of a "visuals" man and didn't really notice it >> being "soundtracked" in any particular way... was nice to >> look at though! >> >> Brendan >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ken Odeluga [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: 01 March 2004 11:56 >>> To: Brendan Nelson; 313 >>> Subject: RE: (313) Mills >>> >>> >>> Well what did we all think of Lost then? Especially Mills and >>> Saunderson. >>> Come on, let's 'ave opinions ... >>> >>> k >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Brendan Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 11:45 AM >>>> To: 313 >>>> Subject: RE: (313) Mills >>>> >>>> >>>> Yeah, it was a pretty surreal moment on Saturday when I saw that >>>> in the magazine! I was on the lookout for a bunch of Absolutely >>>> Fabulous-style fashion journos looking out of their depth at Lost, >>>> but without success... >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Tom Churchill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> Sent: 01 March 2004 11:47 >>>>> To: 313 >>>>> Subject: (313) Mills >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Did anyone other UK list-members spot the Jeff Mills mention >>>>> in the fashion >>>>> pages of the Guardian's Weekend magazine on Saturday? >>> Quite amusing: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1156729,00.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> ############################################################## >> ####################### >> Note: >> >> Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do >> not necessarily represent >> those of Channel Four Television Corporation unless >> specifically stated. This email >> and any files transmitted are confidential and intended >> solely for the use of the >> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have >> received this email in >> error, please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Thank You. >> ############################################################## >> ####################### >> >> >
