Why don't more DJ's play Marionette?

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Why don't more DJ's play Marionette?
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Posted by Guest on Jan-02-2013 03:29:

Why don't more DJ's play Marionette?

Seriously, I mean seriously. If you're playing a legit techno set, why not drop Marionette and blow some minds? I also think DJs need to play more classics in general because its somewhat difficult to play only "new" music and have it not get stale after a couple of hours.

Posted by Dykes_on_Jay on Jan-02-2013 05:02:

evryone is playing classics right now in house, and marionette is but one of many good tracks of the same style.

Posted by Lagrangian on Jan-02-2013 09:13:

marionette is not 'house'

THIS IS HOUSE

Mike Pickering Live @ Nude, Ha�ienda, Manchester - October 1988 by R_co

Posted by Dykes_on_Jay on Jan-02-2013 09:40:

learn to read winston.

Posted by Lagrangian on Jan-02-2013 10:32:

quote:
Originally posted by Dykes_on_Jay
learn to read winston.

learn to bow?

Posted by Woony on Jan-02-2013 13:08:

There's no way you can fit that track in a modern techno set, unless you play it as a last track or in a really druggy extended afterhours set. Besides, techno DJs play plenty of old tracks and classics, although most people probably won't recognize them.

Posted by SYSTEM-J on Jan-02-2013 18:53:

Because minimal techno is, thankfully, no longer popular.

Posted by DOOMBOT on Jan-02-2013 19:42:

quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Because minimal techno is, thankfully, no longer popular.

How does this statement relate to Marionette?

Posted by wotyzoid on Jan-02-2013 20:25:

Not exactly a peak hour record.

Posted by Woony on Jan-02-2013 20:29:

quote:
Originally posted by DOOMBOT
How does this statement relate to Marionette?

Because it's one of the prime minimal techno records of the 2000's?

Posted by Chimney on Jan-02-2013 20:37:

Boring track, imo.

Posted by Guest on Jan-02-2013 20:56:

I'm not sure which of the last 3 replies to make fun of first

Posted by DOOMBOT on Jan-02-2013 21:48:

quote:
Originally posted by Woony
Because it's one of the prime minimal techno records of the 2000's?

I've never really thought of or even heard anyone else refer to either version as "minimal techno" before. What makes either version a minimal techno record in your mind? Just curious.

Posted by MSZ on Jan-02-2013 21:49:

This Mathew guy is a genius methinks.

Posted by DOOMBOT on Jan-02-2013 21:53:

quote:
Originally posted by MSZ
This Mathew guy is a genius methinks.

I love his music. Hopefully I can catch a live set one of these days.

Posted by Woony on Jan-02-2013 21:53:

quote:
Originally posted by DOOMBOT
I've never really thought of or even heard anyone else refer to either version as "minimal techno" before. What makes either version a minimal techno record in your mind? Just curious.

It was made by a minimal techno artist on a minimal techno label around the time the minimal techno hype emerged? I mean, obviously it sounds nothing like the plong shit that came around later but it's still a big part of the minimal techno sound of the 2000's

Posted by DOOMBOT on Jan-02-2013 22:00:

quote:
Originally posted by Woony
It was made by a minimal techno artist on a minimal techno label around the time the minimal techno hype emerged? I mean, obviously it sounds nothing like the plong shit that came around later but it's still a big part of the minimal techno sound of the 2000's

Sorry; maybe I wasn't clear with my question! I'm more or less wondering what your definition of "minimal techno" is and how this track fits into that definition.

Posted by MSZ on Jan-02-2013 22:04:

I am dripping in pre-cum.