| 2001-05-0216:06 | Michael <msnet@uni.de> | Re: [idm] Confield is a natural(sic) progression Hi M,
M Mercer wrote on 02.05.2001 at 17:53… |
| 2001-04-3021:24 | Soel Griffin <xnoybis@priest.com> | [idm] Confield is a natural(sic) progression Much more complicated than any of their other releases. Possibly, they have… |
| 2001-05-0216:12 | Peter Schrock <pachinko74@mac.com> | Re: [idm] Confield is a natural(sic) progression I never said I was into it, I only said I had… |
| 2001-05-0209:20 | teardropb . <boygothic@hotmail.com> | Re: [idm] Confield is a natural(sic) progression It's definitely a cool album, but I think where Autechre failed… |
| 2001-05-0100:40 | Charles R. Terhune <chuck0@cfom-music.com> | Re: [idm] Confield is a natural(sic) progression I would agree from hearing jus the one track.
LP5 makes perfect… |
| 2001-05-0108:43 | teardropb . <boygothic@hotmail.com> | Re: [idm] Confield is a natural(sic) progression >I would agree from hearing jus the one track.
>
>LP5 makes perfect… |
| 2001-05-0119:48 | Peter Schrock <pachinko74@mac.com> | Re: [idm] Confield is a natural(sic) progression on 5/1/01 12:43 AM, teardropb . at boygothic@hotmail.com… |
| 2001-05-0215:53 | M Mercer <vletrmx@hotmail.com> | Re: [idm] Confield is a natural(sic) progression be forewarned that autechre's new album in fact bears little to… |
| 2001-05-0406:57 | teardropb . <boygothic@hotmail.com> | Re: [idm] Confield is a natural(sic) progression be forewarned that autechre's new album in fact bears little to… |
| 2001-05-0115:48 | M Mercer <vletrmx@hotmail.com> | Re: [idm] Confield is a natural(sic) progression having gotten my hands on a full version of confield, and now… |