All About Lostep
Phil K [Audio]: Visually spectacular
by mofunk on September 5th, 2007
Recently nominated as one of the world's 'Top 10 Video DJs' by UK clubbing bible Mixmag, Phil K is understandably quite chuffed with the title. ITM's Mo'Funk caught up with Phil for a chat about the accolade before he heads to the US this month. [more]
Phil K [Audio]: Australian explorer
by angy on February 6th, 2007
Phil K recently returned to Australia after a 2 year stint living in Europe. With a brand new mix CD about to hit stores, 'Phil K's Hi Fi', ITM's Angus Paterson tracked Phil down in Byron Bay to talk shop. [more]
Phil K, back from Atlanta
Now based in the United States – in Atlanta to be exact – Phil K will be heading back for a long overdue run of shows throughout Australia in February and March. [more]
Phil K taking his 'Hi Fi' on the road
Following on from his debut artist album release in 2006 as part of Lostep with fellow Melbourne producer Luke Chable, Phil K has unveiled plans for his latest mix CD, to be titled 'Hi Fi'. [more]
Phil K makes Mixmag's 'Top 10 Video DJ' list
Phil K's continued ascendance on the global stage looks set to continue unabated with the recent announcement that UK clubbing bible Mixmag regard him one of the world's "Top 10 Video DJs". [more]
The dymanic duo known as Lostep (Phil K & Luke Chable) took control of the Cave on saturday night, with Mark Dynamix supporting. The Melbourne bred producers were pleased to bring us three hours of absolute madness & many heads were caved [more]
Prepare yourself for the second of our special edition inthemix50 podcasts, featuring TV Rock, Nick Thayer, Dirty South, Craig Obey, Illya & Toby Neal, Klaus 'Heavyweight' Hill & Dopamine, Phil K & Luke Chable, and more! [more]
Lostep - Because We Can
Lostep - the dynamic Australian duo that is Phil K and Luke Chable - have unleashed their long-anticipated full length artist album on the world. At times ambient, brooding, weird and dirty, "Because We Can" covers a lot in its sixty nine minutes. They did what they could - but should they have? [more]