-----Original Message-----
From: Mirapaul@nytimes.com <Mirapaul@nytimes.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: IMX
>Mr. Morton--
>
>In a message dated 8/11/1999 6:10:17 PM Central Daylight Time,
>writes:
>
><< I hope you respond soon. >>
>
>Sure. I'm interested in digital and downloadable music, too, but the
>industry's primary event for this field, Plug.In, was held three weeks ago
>and received wide coverage. This was a new conference, its mission was not
>well articulated and thus it was not obvious how its content might differ
>from what took place within the past month. In fact, if you look at the
>schedule, many of the same corporate denizens were participating. Under
>those circumstances, it's tough to snag a reporter's time or an editor's
>interest. Were I not a telecommuter from the Midwest, I might have popped in
>to have a look. But as you can see from the Wired News article at
><http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/21205.html>, there wasn't much
>there there. Over time, I may review one or three of the products that were
>unveiled, but not until they're ready for public consumption; after all, as
>you well know, what's demo-ed and how it actually works are often two
>different things.
>
>
>--Matt Mirapaul <mirapaul@nytimes.com>
>
---Original Message-----
To: mirapaul@nytimes.com <mirapaul@nytimes.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 6:00 PM
Subject: IMX
>Why has there been no media coverage of the IMX:
>http://www.imusicxpo.com/frm.htm
>
>Thank you,
>
>Walter Morton
Well, at least he helped me find an article on IMX:
wired.com |
