Name: Thomas Burkhardt
Nationality: German
Occupation: Producer, composer
Current release: Thomas Burkhardt's Weiter is out via LIN/LOG.
Gear Recommendations: The WMD Switching Matrix (+ Expander) is an incredible tool for switching (Who would have thought?), combining, mixing, making sequences, rhythms, messing around with!
XQP modules for the API 500 system are my secret weapon for mixing and mastering! So simple, great sounding and absolutely affordable. They are initially not intended for electronic music at first, but make everything sound creamy and tasty!

If you enjoyed this interview with Thomas Burkhardt and would like to find out more about his music, visit his official website. He is also on twitter, and Soundcloud.



What was your first studio like?

My very first studio setup was a bit of a mess!

I was 14 years old and started with a used Acces Virus A, a Novation Drum Station, an old noisy mixer and a pretty slow PC. Those were good times.

It was fun and I learned a lot very quickly because you had to make workarounds all the time.

How and for what reasons has your set-up evolved over the years and what are currently some of the most important pieces of gear for you?

At some point of my personal progression I found out that analogue equipment, although it is much more expensive and chunky, gives you an incredible palette of original flavours. It turned out that I am a person that even wants to develop and shape sounds from the very beginning, so the modular system was the gear of choice.

There are little gems I could not live without, like the Malekko Wiard (Anti-) Oscillators as well as their three filters, the Toppobrillo Multifilter and Sport Modulator, Intellijel Quadra (in my optinion one of the best function generators ever), the Birdkids Bateleur VCO …

I also own a Genoqs Octopus sequencer, which is the heart of all grid based productions I do.

Some see instruments and equipment as far less important than actual creativity, others feel they go hand in hand. What's your take on that?

I think if you are a creative person you have to exercise a lot to find out what you want to achieve and how you would like to achieve it. Depending on what your idea of your project is you have to choose your equipment wisely. It will alter your vision - positively or negatively.

Electronic music is a special kind of music, because devices can behave like actual partners: they can offer new ideas, they can make unpredictable things you never thought of, but they can also block you from getting ahead. It can be love… or hell.

A studio can be as minimal as a laptop with headphones and as expansive as a multi-room recording facility. Which studio situation do you personally prefer – and why?

A studio should offer to you everything you need, but not everything you want.

Musicians, and I am no exception, are hopeless romantics. They fall in love with gear very easily. I think you should have gear that helps you to express yourself. But you need also tools to value and refine your work.

How big or small your setup is, is not important. You can always check the work of artists you like. Their music will guide you. If you feel comfortible with your personal sound that's the right way.

From traditional keyboards to microtonal ones, from re-configured instruments (like drums or guitars) to customised devices, what are your preferred controllers and interfaces? What role does the tactile element play in your production process?

Not much. Since my works are atonal, most of the time keyboards are pretty uninteresting to me. Knobs, switches and buttons are all I need.

In the light of picking your tools, how would you describe your views on topics like originality and innovation versus perfection and timelessness in music? Are you interested in a “music of the future” or “continuing a tradition”?

I like tools that have a focus on special tasks. I don’t like tools that have displays or multi-level-menus.

There is tradition in synthesizer design. This is a good thing.

I would prefer reliable tools over innovative tools. I think the innovation comes from the artist, not the manufacturer.

Most would regard recording tools like microphones and mixing desks as different in kind from instruments like keyboards, guitars, drums and samplers. Where do you stand on this?

Everything that makes sound can be used as an instrument. You can even make feedback sounds on a mixer without having plugged anything in.

The word “instrument” itself can be understood differently nowadays. There are even devices that capture electromagnetic fields and it sounds awesome! On my latest EP Weiter I use my own voice that was heavily altered by various effects.

Working with microphones:



Working with electromagnetic capturing:



How would you describe the relationship between technology and creativity for your work? Using a recent piece as an example, how do you work with your production tools to achieve specific artistic results?

I need technology to create the music I want. Still I want to elaborate every single sound so that you cannot tell to hear a specific device. On my album End of Cycle I wanted to go beyond expectations about electronic music. This album deals with contrasts of loudness, frequency ranges and analogue vs. digital pecularities.

I used raw unfiltered VCOs with simple gates on/off, I used a speak jet device that was heavily modulated by waveshapers, I took whole mixdowns and routed them back into the modular system to create even more complex variations.

This is what I love technology for: To have the possibilities to do that and to do it in high quality!

Within a digital working environment, it is possible to compile huge archives of ideas for later use. Tell me a bit about your strategies of building such an archive and how you put these ideas and sketches to use.

I'm sorry to say, but I don't use any archives. In every piece I start right from scratch, designing and creating every sound.

The only little archive I have is a folder for field recording sounds that I use to feed a sampler module. That's all.

How do you retain an element of surprise for your own work – are there technologies which are particularly useful in this regard?

That is a difficult question. In order to surprise your audience you need to know what they expect.

I always try to create something new, but I don't think I would rely on technology here. I think it's the idea that should surprise.

Production tools can already suggest compositional ideas on their own. How much of your music is based on concepts and ideas you had before entering the studio, how much of it is triggered by equipment, software and apps?

I hate presets. I never use presets. But there is inspiration through technology that comes from unpredictable elements like noise, (pseudo-) random generators and so on. I use these elements often so that compositions are not too steady.

There are often moments where I think “I did not expected that to happen, but thanks dear modular! That was a good idea!”.

Have there been technologies which have profoundly changed or even questioned the way you make music?

Yes. When the Genoqs Octopus sequencer came out I was one of the first buyers. I saw it and I instantly knew that this was the way I wanted to compose. Since then I never went back composing on the computer.

This machine is a true source of inspiration since you can arrange patterns without fixed limitations. Also you can even program uncertain events which helps a lot to realize my visions.

To some, the advent of AI and 'intelligent' composing tools offers potential for machines to contribute to the creative process. Do you feel as though technology can develop a form of creativity itself? Is there possibly a sense of co-authorship between yourself and your tools?

I don't know who said this so I can only give a poor quote: “The mind can create the machine, but the machine cannot create the mind.“

What tools/instruments do you feel could have a deeper impact on creativity but need to still be invented or developed?

Good question! I have no idea! :)