First, I think discussion of artistic quality is always appropriate. Just because it's hard and a lot of it is down to taste doesn't mean it can't be done or isn't important. Human life is constructed out of equal parts family relationships, friendships, institutional memberships including buying and selling, technology, science, and not least, works of art. Civilizations define themselves with art. Persons create themselves with art. I created myself with Robert Heinlein, Gene Wolfe (science fiction writers), Bach, Beethoven, the Beatles, Stockhausen, Xenakis, and Lansky (musicians), etc., you get the picture.

Specifically about Burial and Csound, I repeat, it would NOT have been possible to make this music with Csound. Csound could certainly be used to exactly re-create the piece down to the last detail. For that matter, Csound could be used to re-create ANY piece of music down to the last detail, including the ones made with voices, fiddles, and pianos. 

However, it is clear that _Untrue_ was created by intensively editing, processing, and assembling samples. This involves many, many trials and comparisons and fine adjustments in a very hands-on, manual, interactive way of working. Csound could certainly make any of the sounds and do any of the processing, and more besides, but it would take too long, and the memory of one take would fade while one was working up the next take. Of course you could play them back A/B, but you would be slipping into and out of the emotional flow. With something like SoundForge, you never need to let go of the flow. It's clear from interviews of Burial that this is how he works. 

Of course, if you are Mozart and can hold the entire composition in your head without variation and write it down, then theoretically you could do any kind of music by just writing down Csound instrument and note code. But although I've talked to a lot of computer-based composers, I haven't talked to anyone, not one, who composes straight out of his or her head. If you ask me, Mozart's head-composing was very much enabled by a well-defined musical vocabulary and a fixed palette of instrumental sounds. This doesn't work very well if you are composing the instruments (or 'textures') along with the notes, as Burial does. You only discover what your sonic palette is, in fact, through a process of trial and error. Again, this goes much faster with Burial's way of composing. As noted Burial does have a limited sonic palette, but with it he produces many finely balanced and modulated shades of timbre.

There are a lot of ways of composing. Csound is unexcelled as an instrument for synthesizing and processing sound, but it is not best suited for ALL methods of composing.

Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
>From: Cesare Marilungo 
>Sent: Jan 13, 2008 4:19 AM
>To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: [OT] Burial
>
>Tim Mortimer wrote:
>> OH NO! somebody save me please...
>>
>> I've just been having this discussion with a bunch of friends about Burial
>> in conjunction the Wire magazine's top 50 for the year.....
>>
>> The whole thing with Burial (& I  don't quite understand the accolades) is
>> how much of his sound is unoriginal to my ears.
>>
>> In itself no crime, but I don't understand quite why all of a sudden
>> "Burial" is the bees knees.
>>
>> A lot of his aesthetic is based on Maurizio & Basic Channel, who in the mid
>> to late 90's & early naughties released a number of 10" & 12" under the
>> "Rhythm & Sound" & "Burial Mix" monikers (!!!!) that are quite frankly some
>> of the most sonically seductive reductionist "heavy nosie floors" music one
>> could ever hope to hear in one's lifetime. As far as i'm concerned this
>> stuff makes Burial look like just another dude in a bedroom with a PC...
>> (EVERYBODY on this list should immediately go & download Burial Mix / Rhythm
>> & Sound  tracks such as "Mango Drive", "King of My Empire", "Never tell you"
>> etc etc...
>>
>> Then there's Pole, & Deadbeat, Jan Jelinek's "Loop Finding Jazz Records",
>> the ~scape label in general, a large part of the Chain Reaction labels
>> output....
>>
>> Of course, NONE of this music was made on PC (with the exception of Deadbeat
>> - & as far as praise goes, i pretty much limit my enjoyment to a few tracks
>> on ~scape number 15 - don't remeber the title...)
>>
>> So fair enough, Burial takes this aesthetic, nails it onto a UK urban
>> context (by syncopating his kickdrum & swinging his high hats - fine by me,
>> i LOVE 2 step garage)  - but it's pretty much the same thought i entertained
>> myself circa 2003, but i was (& am) still struggling to master digital
>> production to a level i'm happy with that i would think about releasing
>> something... & in that respect, Burial (whoever he or she is) has one up on
>> me, & good luck to him
>>
>> I don't understand the hype though - to me he's just (re)stating the
>> bleeding obvious.
>>
>> My decision in response to all this was to basically try & nail Feldman to
>> this aesthetic instead! ; ) Things change however....
>>
>> Even Burial's "anonimity" copies directly from the Basic Channel / Pole
>> lineage & aesthetic...
>>
>> & i say all this admittedly without even having heard the 2007 burial
>> album...
>>
>> Most other "grime" & "dubstep" i've heard has been dissapointing.... 
>>
>> If you like Burial, you should love Pole 3, Jan Jelinek's "loop Finding
>> Jazz", & Most of the Rhythm & Sound / Burial Mix back catalog (despite their
>> being no PC in sight...)
>>
>> There's a lot better & slicker 2 step out there too i'd reckon..
>>
>> now let the retorts commence....
>>
>>
>>   
>I didn't want to join the discussion (because I hate to judge art & 
>music) but I couldn't resist. Tim, I second what you're saying. I can't 
>see the reason for all the hype, either.
>
>Michael, don't get me wrong, I respect everybody's tastes. But, still, 
>I'm disappointed that we're still discovering new music through the same 
>old channels (and this applies to me, too). Music magazines love this 
>kind of things (the "anonimity", the limitation of resources and so on). 
>Sometimes, it seems to me that these are some sort of "requirements" to 
>be taken seriously.
>
>Also, I don't understand what you (Michael) mean when you say that 
>Burial's music couldn't have been made with csound. Maybe, if one limits 
>himself to a tool like Soundforge, this kind of output comes more naturally.
>
>If there's a lesson here, IMO, it is that the tools and instruments you 
>use to make music are just a means to an end, or better, something you 
>study and use for their own sake. I like to think about csound and all 
>the synthesis techniques in this way, too. I learn to use them for their 
>own sake, because they're interesting. Knowing what I'm doing doesn't 
>necessarily makes me a better musician. To me, one can make great music 
>even drawing samples in an editor by hand. Or whistling in a microphone 
>and clapping his hands.
>
>Just my two cents.
>
>-c.
>
>-- 
>www.cesaremarilungo.com 
>
>
>
>Send bugs reports to this list.
>To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

I would agree with pretty much all of this. When i came to csound, it was
because i thought working with a text based score might speed the process
from "my head" to "somebody else's ears".

Pretty much everything i have done with python since has been about working
towards the aims you are describing...

So much software out there seems to be about GUI's designed simply to give
access to a bunch of instrument parameters, & none of it (with the possible
remote exception of Ableton live, but to a very limited degree...) is about
creating a "composers overview" of a musical work, assisting them to
organise "thematic" content (even if it's simply a range of 2 step beats &
associated fills & fx, or something in the more Schoenbergian sense of the
word - from my ad-hoc experience it doesn't really matter...) outside of the
direct realisation of the work itself. 

This is a fairly "abstract concept" granted, but i know from my own (mainly
songwriting) experience (& my prototypical ambient / 12TET "colourfield"
works to date) that "when it comes, it comes quick" - & the main thing
stopping me finishing stuff is often that by the time you stop & "work out
all the details to realise the score in computer speak" it's often 3 weeks
later, & you are so bored with the piece you don't care anymore & just want
to start something else.

I'm a little baffled still though as to why you see Soundforge as the
antidote to this Michael. Whatever you do it seems (& my "colourfield"
direction is a case in point) it seems sooner or later to have to limit your
"composition" to sounds you currently have available, & arrange them from
there (even if a great deal of work & prior editing has gone into them, &
you "tidy them up further" once an arrangement is in place.

But this whole issue is really at the core of my computer music experience -
particularly as i say, coming from a rather unsalubrious background of
"indie rock" where "1,2,3,4 - bam!" is an accepted (& often remarkably
productive & enjoyable) methodology....


Michael Gogins wrote:
> 
> First, I think discussion of artistic quality is always appropriate. Just
> because it's hard and a lot of it is down to taste doesn't mean it can't
> be done or isn't important. Human life is constructed out of equal parts
> family relationships, friendships, institutional memberships including
> buying and selling, technology, science, and not least, works of art.
> Civilizations define themselves with art. Persons create themselves with
> art. I created myself with Robert Heinlein, Gene Wolfe (science fiction
> writers), Bach, Beethoven, the Beatles, Stockhausen, Xenakis, and Lansky
> (musicians), etc., you get the picture.
> 
> Specifically about Burial and Csound, I repeat, it would NOT have been
> possible to make this music with Csound. Csound could certainly be used to
> exactly re-create the piece down to the last detail. For that matter,
> Csound could be used to re-create ANY piece of music down to the last
> detail, including the ones made with voices, fiddles, and pianos. 
> 
> However, it is clear that _Untrue_ was created by intensively editing,
> processing, and assembling samples. This involves many, many trials and
> comparisons and fine adjustments in a very hands-on, manual, interactive
> way of working. Csound could certainly make any of the sounds and do any
> of the processing, and more besides, but it would take too long, and the
> memory of one take would fade while one was working up the next take. Of
> course you could play them back A/B, but you would be slipping into and
> out of the emotional flow. With something like SoundForge, you never need
> to let go of the flow. It's clear from interviews of Burial that this is
> how he works. 
> 
> Of course, if you are Mozart and can hold the entire composition in your
> head without variation and write it down, then theoretically you could do
> any kind of music by just writing down Csound instrument and note code.
> But although I've talked to a lot of computer-based composers, I haven't
> talked to anyone, not one, who composes straight out of his or her head.
> If you ask me, Mozart's head-composing was very much enabled by a
> well-defined musical vocabulary and a fixed palette of instrumental
> sounds. This doesn't work very well if you are composing the instruments
> (or 'textures') along with the notes, as Burial does. You only discover
> what your sonic palette is, in fact, through a process of trial and error.
> Again, this goes much faster with Burial's way of composing. As noted
> Burial does have a limited sonic palette, but with it he produces many
> finely balanced and modulated shades of timbre.
> 
> There are a lot of ways of composing. Csound is unexcelled as an
> instrument for synthesizing and processing sound, but it is not best
> suited for ALL methods of composing.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-OT--Burial-tp14769488p14792383.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.