We apologize for the break in our coverage. We were watching from the sidelines for a while, but are beginning the debate that began it all once again!
Honestly the topic had gotten out of hand so quickly that any space for a logical examination of our factual and evidentiary knowledge on the matter evaporated in the frenzy of competing potential arguments and claims. The aforementioned frenzy produced a small Internet meme receptacle, that was possibly triggered by this website’s altering of Google’s search results. That is to say, that over the period of time between Four Tet tweeting a link to our site (see last post) until the meme took hold (a time period which was about a year in length) when someone typed in “Burial is” on Google, “Four Tet” ended up becoming the triggered entry. The trend has continued on and on exponentially—becoming a reality, one in which Burial must be Four Tet. And then, alas! That Burial must be ‘William Bevan’ as Hyperdub’s web page announced.
Google has arguably unhinged our grasp on actual knowledge on the topic of the true identity of Burial and of ‘William Bevan’, as the site unintentionally triggered what would lead to a series of memes, stories, and a final offering of Burial’s still unproven identity, as being one ‘William Bevan’.
But we stand to argue that nothing has been proven or disproven about Burial’s identity thus far. How does the release of a mere website with a picture of an unknown man (who’s picture has appeared earlier, to match with the supposed identity of ‘William Bevan’) and a written statement from a highly biased (see earlier Discography post) source actually prove anything more to us?
Has this web page actually proven anything to you?
It seems to have only confirmed that the identity, that of one ‘William Bevan’, which the Internet meme frenzy seems to have “decided” upon, is supposed to be what we walk away with.
The meme—an Internet frenzy of false claims and even a dearth of Burial identity meme images and sites—was caused accidentally, apparently due to the fact that the unanswered question as to who Burial’s true identity really is — was lost in an onslaught of misinformation that has lead us away from the truth — the truth that we know nothing of Burial’s true identity.
People have clung to the idea that Burial is ‘William Bevan’. Maybe this is because they can still connect with a mystique about his unknown persona or his anonymity, that they formerly felt. This connection arguably intensifies a listener’s connection to Burial’s sound—which is subversive, dreary, dark, and emotional; yet also almost non-human, and thus not alive, or something that could be been composed by an identifiable person. Who would want to believe that Burial is not the alleged ‘William Bevan’, and lose holding on to the music’s epic mystique? If Burial is not actually ‘William Bevan’, surely those who believe he is would lose a massive part of the mystique about Burial’s music. Which is why some may want to keep believing the new but yet unproven, untrue reality that the meme phenomena has brought us to—that Burial is ‘William Bevan’.
The Revised Hypothesis:
That Burial—who we have been told thus far via a spree of modern day Internet—may not be ‘William Bevan’.
The fiction and stories coming from news sources such as Equalizer Mag and The Guardian—which we must mention was quick to defame our original Hypothesis as not at all pointing to some higher truth—as well as Stereogum—have decided that Burial is one ‘William Bevan’.
But Burial, who some currently believe is ‘William Emmanuel Bevan’, could still be a mystery man. And here’s why:
News agencies such as Stereogum’s reporting on Hyperdub’s website amendment featuring a web page with one image of a man, who the site claims is one ‘William Emmanuel Bevan’, have claimed that ‘William Bevan’ is undeniably Burial. But what has Hyperdub and/or Stereogum’s reporting on the topic truly done?
We would say it has only momentarily quenched the debate—sealing off from the floor those who do not yet believe that Burial is the person who we have been told to believe Burial is—one ‘William Bevan’.
But we are back. And we need kindly request a non-biased, trustworthy source of information proving Burial’s true identity, or at the very least a statement that no further inquiry into Burial’s true identity will be allowed, if sealing off those who still lay in question is the desired way forward.
If the Internet is the sole source left to proving whether or not information that allegedly proves Burial’s identity as ‘William Bevan’ is misinformation or accurate, then we argue that the alleged information is not proven at all.
Why has Burial’s identity still yet to have been effectively and believably proven to the masses? Is such definitive proof impossible to create using only the Internet as the source of said proof? We think maybe so.
Is the Internet no longer a reliable source for any information to be effectively proven as truthful whatsoever? We think maybe so.
Perhaps proving to the Internet that Burial’s true identity is his true identity could be a litmus test.
We here at Burial Hypothesis HQ would be happy to hear that ‘William Bevan’ has in fact been proven to be Burial, as this was never an issue or a concern of our original inquiry. The inquiry was concerned with proving the identity of Burial, and we offered what still remains a rather unanswered hypothesis—that Burial is Four Tet.
Perhaps the world, and the Internet, needs a news story with a video of ‘William Bevan’, in order to prove that ‘William Bevan’ is Burial? Or perhaps a Vine? Or Perhaps a YouTube video? Or Perhaps an Instagram video? Or Perhaps a Vimeo? Or Perhaps a Snap Chat video? Or perhaps…
…some kind of video?