not being able to produce after listnenin to burial

b-lam · Post by **b-lam** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 11:37 am

tempest wrote:lol @ this quote from Burial in that blackdown interview

"Digital Mystikz and Loefah’s stuff is so good they make me want to stop making tunes."

lucky he persisted i guess

u kno what i forgot about that bit, that's made me feel alot better!

thinking · Post by **thinking** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 12:12 pm

Heider wrote:i really don't see how he could have produced that whole album just using soundforge whether he claims it or not. it's a nice program, but i don't see how it can be used to make a full track let alone a full album. you need a sequencer to make music...also if all he uses is soundforge, then that would make him 100% sample based.

why not? Not that difficult to understand how someone could work like that - take a sample, effect/treat it to taste, then paste it. The interesting thing is that it's very difficult or sometimes impossible to 'undo' things. You wouldn't have to be 100% sample-based (although he might be), he'd just have to sample his own synth hits and add them to the track in Soundforge...

From Kode 9's most recent interview:

9: Why didn't you use a sequencer on the album?

Burial: I tried. I did one tune before. . .Unite. With someone showing me how to use it, and it worked out nice, but in the end I wasn't ready and I wanted to do another record without a sequencer again.

9: You like that ramshackle thing, don't you.

Burial: Yeah, I admire people who understand complicated programs or whatever. But I'm not that into tunes that are so sequenced that all you can hear is the perfect grid, e ven on the echoes. With those kind of tunes, sometimes I just hear Tetris music, i always know where i am in the tune so i cant get lost in it, no rough edges in some tunes even when they try hard to sound rough. I want to learn one day how to make tunes properly , but I wanted to do a tribute to my rubbish, dying computer. It starts smoking sometimes and the screen flickers like a strobelight, it mashes your eyes. The tunes are made where they're made, somewhere in my building, the roof or wherever, but not in some airtight studio. Loads of the album was made with the TV on. I wish i could make technical proper music one day but people who want technical music maybe won't like my new tunes but its not for them.

http://www.hyperdubrecords.blogspot.com

roqqert · Post by **roqqert** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 12:18 pm

quote : then that would make him 100% sample based.

why cant that be lol ? most of my tunes are only samplebased

like there is a law in dubstep of using synths all the time

when you're limited youll start thinking in creativity to make your shit still original

heider · Post by **heider** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:18 pm

ThinKing wrote:why not? Not that difficult to understand how someone could work like that - take a sample, effect/treat it to taste, then paste it. The interesting thing is that it's very difficult or sometimes impossible to 'undo' things. You wouldn't have to be 100% sample-based (although he might be), he'd just have to sample his own synth hits and add them to the track in Soundforge...

yeah i understand adding affects and pasting stuff here and there. i regularly use it for editing samples and mixes and adding fx. but i don't understand how you can actually layer audio tracks (as opposed to just pasting them next to each other). i'm fairly inexperienced with soundforge, so maybe i just don't know all of it's capabilities. are you talking about him using an external hardware synth? i assumed he was all software based.

Roqqert wrote:quote : then that would make him 100% sample based.

why cant that be lol ? most of my tunes are only samplebased like there is a law in dubstep of using synths all the time

when you're limited youll start thinking in creativity to make your shit still original

not saying all sample based is bad or wrong. but a big part of dubstep is bass and the best way to do that is with a nice synth. sure you can sample basslines, but why limit yourself?

climate · Post by **climate** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:26 pm

I'm a bit dubious about him just using soundforge, its just a editor right? can you even multitrack?. Maybe i'm a bit cynical but i can imagine all the mystique he's created around his music could be as much for marketing purposes as it is his own shyness or whatever.

heider · Post by **heider** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:05 pm

climate wrote:I'm a bit dubious about him just using soundforge, its just a editor right? can you even multitrack?. Maybe i'm a bit cynical but i can imagine all the mystique he's created around his music could be as much for marketing purposes as it is his own shyness or whatever.

that's basically what i'm thinkin. but hey either way, props to him for good music.

theonelikepaul · Post by **theonelikepaul** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:28 pm

Heider wrote: i don't understand how you can actually layer audio tracks (as opposed to just pasting them next to each other).

Theres a function called 'mix paste', allows overlapping of sounds, in a collage style.

You could quite easily start with a new empty wave file 5 mins in length and just mix paste bits into it at the right moments in time.

The real genius is in the found sound he's used to create the tracks with.

heider · Post by **heider** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:31 pm

theonelikepaul wrote:
Heider wrote: i don't understand how you can actually layer audio tracks (as opposed to just pasting them next to each other).
Theres a function called 'mix paste', allows overlapping of sounds, in a collage style.

You could quite easily start with a new empty wave file 5 mins in length and just mix paste bits into it at the right moments in time.

The real genius is in the found sound he's used to create the tracks with.

learn something new everyday! thanks!

b-lam · Post by **b-lam** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:32 pm

on soundforge if u copy and paste stuff u get an option to mix the sample in at the desired point rather than just pasting it over the top, u control volume levels of the sample and it gets mixed into the existing wave.
its perfectly possible to build a track up like that, just think about the time u spent learning to sequence with multitrackers, its just a different way of working.

John Locke · Post by **John Locke** » Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:50 pm

tempest wrote:I dunno if i buy that burial uses soundforge thing... I mean, apparently he has close mates that don't even know he makes tunes.. how would what software he uses get leaked......

cos he said so himself in an interview back in 2006. maybe on blackdown's blog, not sure, but i remember reading this even tho i didnt really know what it meant as ive never seen sundforge so dont know what it can and cant do

auan · Post by **auan** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:36 pm

I've always been a bit dubious about the "100% Soundforge" claims. But the new one has me changing my mind. I'd say the vocals are definitely done in SF, and done very well too. Pitch-shifting each sung note to make new melodies, like "I can't take my eyes off you" in Near Dark. It was maybe only one line sampled from the song, but he's twisted it up to become the main hook. Lovely.

The rest of it I'm not so sure. I don't see how you could get a good mix from only mixing in one element at a time. And I don't see how everything stays so perfectly in time.

So I'm gonna try it for myself in a few days time. Anyone else want to start a "make a tune the Burial way" thread and see what we can come up with?

jim · Post by **jim** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:39 pm

Think he also has hardware. He just only uses soundforge as far as the stuff he does on computer is concerned.

N.B. I may be talking shite.

sully_shanks · Post by **sully_shanks** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:22 am

burial has more feeling in his tracks than any other 'electronic' producer out there right now. it aint got anything to do with equipment or technique, its the soul and memory in his sound thats incomparable.
something that sounds that deep is gonna be tricky to stand up to. u have to look closely at what u are trying to express thru music to get anywhere near.

d-T-r · Post by **d-T-r** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:38 pm

sully_shanks wrote:burial has more feeling in his tracks than any other 'electronic' producer out there right now. it aint got anything to do with equipment or technique, its the soul and memory in his sound thats incomparable.
something that sounds that deep is gonna be tricky to stand up to. u have to look closely at what u are trying to express thru music to get anywhere near.

exactly. people need to stop giving a shit about what software is being used to create stuff. this is why i never ask anyone and am reluctunt when people ask me. it really doesnt matter. technical results can be acheived in infinite ways. if you got 'limitations', then the ideas/tunes will take longer to be constructed but thats not a bad thing. on a few of my earlier tunes i did the whole mix paste thing but on audition...wasnt cos i didnt have a sequencer just happened to have it open at the time.

people are like how does he keep it perfectly in time then? im pretty sure the beats arent perfectly in time anyway. you can gennerally tell when something's quantised tightly or not...and as for keeping it time continuiosuly im sure he porbbaly just makes like an 8 bar loop at a time, copy and pastes it in succession so the beats might not stay in time to a perfect point bpm but they stay in time to themselves...maybe nto but the idea really isnt that hard to grasp....

stop talking about burial and what production techniques he has. (which will be kind of hard on this place)

whineo · Post by **whineo** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:27 pm

dTruk wrote: stop talking about burial (which will be kind of hard on this place)

i Like talking about Burial

d-T-r · Post by **d-T-r** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:37 pm

Whineo wrote:
dTruk wrote: stop talking about burial (which will be kind of hard on this place)
i Like talking about Burial

just listen to burial instead

whineo · Post by **whineo** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 2:13 pm

dTruk wrote:
Whineo wrote:
dTruk wrote: stop talking about burial (which will be kind of hard on this place)
i Like talking about Burial
just listen to burial instead

Listening, talking any medium really - never before has an artist intrigued me so much

isus · Post by **isus** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 2:20 pm

no effect on me,just like the first album.
I think he uses one and only drum sample

...in both albums

barryhercules · Post by **barryhercules** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:41 pm

on the subject of using soundforge to create music....does it have a montage editor like wavelab? you can have samples etc run in seperate lanes kinda like a sequencer but with out timing. tried to use it like that after reading burial used an audio editor rather than sequencer but found it a bit hard.

two oh one · Post by **two oh one** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:52 pm

It's got back to gear. It always gets back to gear. This is the problem...

I think the remedy is to not start a track unless you have a clear goal. A layout. A design. Before you twist a single knob.

What IS this track?
What is its point?
What makes this different from all the other tracks with badman samples in it?
What is the point to it even existing?
Is it identical to anything else?
What it THE POINT, damn it?
What am I trying to say with this music?
What am I feeling?
How is this track speaking of how I'm feeling?
What is THE POINT?
Am I an artist or a techy noodler with too many toys?
What is THE POINT?

That should solve a few probs and discourage any pointless exercises in badman cock waving production wars. Of course, things can come from endless, aimless noodling, but you're just getting lucky.

Forget the gear. Whatever Burial uses (Or pretends to use for mystique value) is irrelevant. Use what you have (less is often more), but just have some good ideas in your head before you start.

not being able to produce after listnenin to burial

Who is online