I second that. Kontrol peepz put on a great nite out!! last month was magda, last weekend was tejada, and next month is dan bell.
what more can we ask for in the bay area? =) thx greg and the others! -----Original Message----- From: dave cronin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 8:51 AM To: Wojtek; gretchen anderson; 313 Subject: Re: (313) Tejada/Maxwell in SF hey now. no one says you have to love the music, but that's a bit out of order. no reason to take potshots at the kontrol peeps just for following a couple techno conventions/cliches. these guys put the on night out of a love of the music at a time when no one else in SF would touch the more avante side of techno/techhouse. luckily for the rest of us who just show up once a month, it's been successful and FUN. -d --- Wojtek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But then again, what else can you expect from a promotion company that > spells the word control with a K and uses photoshop to make the > producers it books appear otherworldly, quirky, and "cool". > > > On Nov 21, 2005, at 1:35 PM, gretchen anderson > wrote: > > > I enjoyed John Tejada and Justin Maxwell quite a > bit this weekend. > > It's interesting that you say that, but to each her/his own, I guess. > To me their set wouldn't have been enjoyable if they added five > laptops and three analog fx boxes to the sequencers they were > operating. What their music lacked in depth and emotion (aside from > John Tajada's few emotive but far too short moments) they certainly > did not make up for by playing to the crowd, incorporating > electro-clash guitar samples and a whole slew of quirky and gimmicky > "glitch" sounds. > > > It's also interesting to see how the new so-called "minimal" sound is > considered progressive by some magazine music reviewers, while what > can be termed "classic" techno, or at least the original "minimal > techno" > of Hood, Mills, Bell, Shakir and others carries the stigma of being > perceived as "soulless, repetitive machine music" to this day, while > exactly the opposite is true of the former and the latter. > >
