On Nov 8, 2007 10:09 AM, Nick Breinich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > this has been my impression of the new record. it's the same thing > for 45 minutes that I bought before. a few bright moments spoiled by > the re-use of most of the sounds from the last record and the re-use > of an entire idea. i was definitely hoping for a little more > progression in his style. personally it's just a little boring to me.
?!?! its so completely different from the last album. i just dont know what to say about that, really. > i'm also in the darker/heavier camp. anstam, combat recordings, > scorn, vex'd etc. that's what i'm diggin way more than the garage > leaning tracks i've heard. just my personal inclination. see, dark and heavy dont mean anything to me. i have so much dark and heavy music, i just dont need any more. in fact, i am of the opinion that dark and heavy music is exactly the easiest thing for people to make since it outnumbers more soulful and emotional sounding music 100 to 1. On Nov 8, 2007 10:18 AM, Martin Dust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > nah, at the very beginning, dubstep was just 2-step minus the vocals > > and adding on a bunch of echo and more dubwise bass. it was only after > > it got attacked by the "garage outsiders" that it became what it is > > now. in fact, i think im gonna have to do a mix of those old records, > > theyre still so good and entertaining and many of them would fit in > > just fine with broken beats, Recloose, Carl Craig, etc. at least thats > > what i used to mix them up with! > > That's not strictly true but I can't be arsed to map the early days > of Dubstep out again :) i think youre going to have to do it man, since i was buying the records in 00-02 when the name was first being used. any timeline that includes anything outside of 2-step in its lineage is incorrect, and is likely on some revisionist history business. > >> I've just played them both of these back to back and Black Secret > >> sounds more modern than the stuff on Untrue, with basically is one > >> idea for 45+ minutes, BST kicks its sorry ass if you ask me. > > > > but man, comparing the two straight up is just not what its all about! > > I think it's a fair call, one's ground break and one isn't. so only groundbreaking music is worth listening to? how does that make any sense? i mean, you know i love that mark archer record, but what is groundbreaking about it? absolutely nothing! its just good sh*t. > Tom some of those sample have been used so much their udders are > bleeding, even the stuff he's lifted from the More Rockers Crew has > been done to death. and the 808 and 909 have been used 100 million times more than any sample from anything. does it make them less effective? 1000 bad uses of a sample dont make one good one any less good. > It's defo not the fault of anyone, he's made an album and he loves it > and stands by it, nothing more you can ask and if he's like me he > won't give a flying crap what anyone else says and that's the way it > should be. I'm just trying to avoid doing an edit job :) haha. On Nov 8, 2007 11:02 AM, Toby Frith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Burial got a lot of exposure because he produced an album. Individual tracks > on EPs here > and there by artists already mentioned will never get the same amount of > impact, especially > on places like Pitchfork or even the Wire which still get excited by the old > format. making entire albums of good material that flow and work well together is always more interesting to me than EPs or 12"s, mainly because they are so infrequent. why is it an "old format"? technically, EPs and singles are far older! a good album has much more space for someone to work with. most people can't do it very well, especially in "dance" music. Burial has done it twice in the space of one year. that is nearly incredible. On Nov 9, 2007 2:54 AM, fab. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > what's new about slowed down ukgarage with muted sound effects and samples > of rainfall? sounds like moody garage for heartbroken croydon chavs to me. > it's even got the helium vocals for crying out loud! > i found it very boring and flat. nothing new about it, just something very excellent about it. good music is always new! and flat and boring? thats exactly the opposite of what i would say about this album in particular. i mean, i just cant see how someone puts that album on and that is the conclusion they come to. i can think of any number of criticisms that might make some sense, but those arent it. > i bet this dubstep thing will be off the radar in 18 months, just like what > happened to the ex-new thing, broken beats. broken beats existed before there was a "scene" for it, and it still exists to this day. just because *you* arent paying attention to it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. dubstep is 7 years old. it may have sucked for more of that than it was good, but so what? > new music is out there ppl but most of you disdain it.............. such as? i only disdain crappy music. On Nov 9, 2007 7:20 AM, Robert Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not that down with Burial either - it's OK - nothing offensive - I > just don't see what the fuss about it is - it's not really dubstep > either, it's coffeestep - it's not 'hard' enough for me - I prefer the > bumrattling basslines of DMZ releases myself thats the same criticism so many banging techno people had for Detroit techno when it was popular. and that argument is just as ridiculous now as it was then for Detroit techno and as it was when atmospheric jungle came out. i really think it boils down to so many of you preferring angry white guy music. i mean, really, why? there is so so so much of that out there, its practically ubiquitous in nearly every electronic music genre. deep emotional sh*t like burial is practically non-existent in any genre. > It's middle-class Guardian-reading electronic music - it'll go on the > shelf with all those Zero 7 and Massive Attack CDs i cant even imagine that you have ears if you can compare Zero 7 to Burial. that is just nonsense. and what exactly is wrong with Massive Attack? their music has stood the test of time quite well. tom
