running with what third said re:chino amobi (who i've also felt burned out on) and also what luka said re:what's it for, it seems that there is a possible move to make away from composing-through-elaboration of synthetic textures
for the sake of elaborating an extra-musical/context-specific concept (which makes the listener passive, is a sort of 'program music'), and towards the same mode of composition, the same toolset + even the exact same set of references in mind sometimes, but
for the sake of things imminent to the process,
for the sake of feeling out + pushing on the boundaries of that process.
music doesn't have to say anything in itself for everybody about the context in which it's made. it can speak about itself as music and that is 100% okay.
luka asked what is digital for? you answer your own question and it's precisely for a complete emulation of God. that's all this is about, and we can link 'man is the brother of God' to 'God makes the world with light' re:why the play of light on surfaces is such a persistent fascination, such an appealing thing to model. it's a flex of that very ability to display kinship with God-via-imitation.
and it doesn't have to come with any guilty conscience either. we are ultimately hermetists, not protestants.
kumar -
"You can put the “damp cupboard” reverb on a snare and filter it through the “rickety windmill” then side chain it through the asteroid field."
there is so much *joy* in this kind of attitude towards production and also in putting -the process- to words. it's perfectly descriptive of the track they posted, also.