But isn't that part of the lure or Hawtin-styled minimalism that it works as subtle background-as-foreground music, aka furniture music?
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 08:18:10AM -0800, Joel Gajewski wrote: > 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: [email protected] > 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 >
