Cover of Burial Archangel
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:55 pm
Really good!
She's amazing.
She's amazing.
Dubstepforum.com
worldwide dubstep community
https://www.dubstepforum.com/forum/
Cover of Burial Archangel
Page 1 of 3
Re: Cover of Burial Archangel
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:22 pm
it's good it isn't cringeworthy.. i don't really feel it though, reckon a slower tempo to really bring through the emotion in the performance could make this something serious, something just doesn't seem right with this.. it might literally be that the original is a masterpiece.
Re: Cover of Burial Archangel
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:32 pm
I thinik it's a very annoying cover. Vocals are not suits to song.
Re: Cover of Burial Archangel
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:57 pm
it's fucking useless, why would you try to vocally cover a track with not actual lyrics but mangled vocal snippets, it doesn't make sense. also wtf is up with the panning going left to right all the time. wouldn't either recognize the track without the vocals so where are those chords coming from
Re: Cover of Burial Archangel
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:01 pm
This is amazing, thank you
Re: Cover of Burial Archangel
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:01 pm
This girl thinks she is way better at singing than she actually is. This is terrible, 1 shitty take and then loop it for five minutes?
Re: Cover of Burial Archangel
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:33 pm
wwwmoo wrote:This girl thinks she is way better at singing than she actually is. This is terrible, 1 shitty take and then loop it for five minutes?
Re: Cover of Burial Archangel
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Re: Cover of Burial Archangel
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:48 pm
The panning could be a little more subtle... but overall, I love it.
Re: Cover of Burial Archangel
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:23 pm
gerbege.
Re: Cover of Burial Archangel
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:30 pm
Think I prefer it to the original, but probably because I really hate the way Burial uses vocals. I'm not much of a burial fan but I think I maybe could be if he made more instrumental stuff.
The vocal panning in this is really annoying though
The vocal panning in this is really annoying though
Re: Cover of Burial Archangel
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:51 am
1point5 wrote:Think I prefer it to the original, but probably because I really hate the way Burial uses vocals. I'm not much of a burial fan but I think I maybe could be if he made more instrumental stuff.
The vocal panning in this is really annoying though
Re: Cover of Burial Archangel
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:27 pm
^ indeed, what the actual fuck.
Re: Cover of Burial Archangel
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:29 pm
Unpopular opinions thread plz1point5 wrote:Think I prefer it to the original, but probably because I really hate the way Burial uses vocals. I'm not much of a burial fan but I think I maybe could be if he made more instrumental stuff.
Re: Cover of Burial Archangel
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:14 pm
Pretty sure the subject has been well covered thereLye Form wrote:Unpopular opinions thread plz1point5 wrote:Think I prefer it to the original, but probably because I really hate the way Burial uses vocals. I'm not much of a burial fan but I think I maybe could be if he made more instrumental stuff.
I'm definitely not alone on this forum thinking that Burial is overrated
Re: Cover of Burial Archangel
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:17 pm
The thing is it's all opinion.
Apart from saying Burial is overrated/not good that's incorrect you can't say that.
Apart from saying Burial is overrated/not good that's incorrect you can't say that.
Re: Cover of Burial Archangel
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:39 pm
wutLichee wrote:The thing is it's all opinion.
Apart from saying Burial is overrated/not good that's incorrect you can't say that.
Of course it's my opinion, what else would it be?
Anyway, to elaborate, I generally find that Burial's vocal samples usually sound like they've been haphazardly slapped on and end up being pretty non-cohesive with the rest of the track - but not in an interesting and experimental way, it just sounds like lazy unthoughtful production to me. I think this song works better and makes much more sense to me with a live vocalist.
Re: Cover of Burial Archangel
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 6:08 pm
I feel the complete opposite of this.1point5 wrote: I generally find that Burial's vocal samples usually sound like they've been haphazardly slapped on and end up being pretty non-cohesive with the rest of the track
But as you said it's all opinion.
Re: Cover of Burial Archangel
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:26 pm
I like the idea, think it could be more developed. It sounds okay though.
Re: Cover of Burial Archangel
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:46 pm
i'm kidding of course it's all opinion, it's just for me I consider Burial being great closer to fact than opinion, it's either you like Burial, or you haven't listened to him properly.1point5 wrote:wutLichee wrote:The thing is it's all opinion.
Apart from saying Burial is overrated/not good that's incorrect you can't say that.
Of course it's my opinion, what else would it be?
Anyway, to elaborate, I generally find that Burial's vocal samples usually sound like they've been haphazardly slapped on and end up being pretty non-cohesive with the rest of the track - but not in an interesting and experimental way, it just sounds like lazy unthoughtful production to me. I think this song works better and makes much more sense to me with a live vocalist.
"this song works better and makes much more sense to me with a live vocalist" - the beauty of Burials vocals is the short clips, pitching and repetition, it means it never sounds like a vocalist, you don't know who's singing it, if it's male or female, a girl or a woman or where the vocals came from. They sort of support the entire track, the tune doesn't become about a singer.
Burial's production is definitely not lazy and unthoughtful, i'm not sure we're listening to the same music here.