My first go at the full movement ( minus the first part ) All done on the D50s, D550s, DMPRO, Nordlead2, Waldorf Q. Sequenced on Akai ASQ10 and solos played live by hand.
Now this is an original interpretation, and thus yes, thumbs up from me! I like the use of the Elka 707 rhythm-box in the tune. This actually made me smile!!! It's kinda Magnetic Fields Part 5 and Rendez-Vous Part 4 blended together. Creatively done, and not a 1-to-1 copy of the original!Finaero wrote:Off-topic, but I'd say my favorite non-replica JMJ cover this year is this one
How much of the percussions on that album are from the SDX? I vaguely remember reading that the bass kick drum was from ADD-ONE and the snare from Akai MPC(?).Armandox wrote:btw Matt, since you're working on Revolutions... If you need/want a complete sample-bank of the Simmons SDX (drums), I got that for you... If you like, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
It's a mixture of sounds from the SDX, ADD1 and Fairlight CMI.Finaero wrote:How much of the percussions on that album are from the SDX? I vaguely remember reading that the bass kick drum was from ADD-ONE and the snare from Akai MPC(?).
You know matt, it's interesting that you say this.matt222 wrote:I disagree.
There's no intention to be a copycat - it's a technical challenge
Making a 'replica' cover for me is all about the challenge of dissecting the notes and sounds and rebuilding a performance on my hardware as close as possible to the original and that's not easy! So I disagree when you say it's not difficult because it is and that's why most covers we hear are awful!
It's just like an orchestra striving to play a classical piece as close to the original arrangement as the composer intended
I hear a piece of music and want to play it myself live along with my sequencer. But I want it to sound as it was intended to sound.
I agree there's no new creativity - for this we would create an entirely original piece not derived from the work of another artist in the first place which wouldn't really be relevant to a site dedicated to Jean Michel Jarre
Thanks for the clarification! I totally associate those sounds with the whole Revolutions album in particular, which is why hearing the kick sound elsewhere (like in Mike Oldfield's 1992 concert) always intrigues me.Armandox wrote:It's a mixture of sounds from the SDX, ADD1 and Fairlight CMI.Finaero wrote:How much of the percussions on that album are from the SDX? I vaguely remember reading that the bass kick drum was from ADD-ONE and the snare from Akai MPC(?).
On Industrial Revolution: Overture i.e...
The snare is from the Simmons SDX: Brass Snare 1
The kick indeed the ADD1: PitchTailKick
I understand what you are trying to say/convey here Analog, and I must tend to agree. Making music, playing music is an art. Mixing music is most certainly an art aswell.Analog-Umph wrote:
You know matt, it's interesting that you say this.
Because for years I've been meaning to tell you that your mixes are too bright. (Obscene amounts of high frequency content.)
Part of Jarre's 70's and 80's music's charm is that they are fairly rounded/warm sounding. This is both intentional on his part and part of the equipment he worked with, especially the tape. Oxygene and Equinoxe sound as great as they do in our minds because of the way he treated ALL of the sounds. Even the ones that came from additive sources which when recorded nowadays from the same instruments immediately sound to our minds as "fake" or uncomfortable to listen to.
In nature acoustic instruments have a rounded and limited frequency spectrum, the way Jarre created his patches and/or processed sounds for those two albums, and for many afterward leans towards the same naturalistic approach, which is why purely synthesized sounds (alongside orchestral-like arrangement) sounds so interesting/timeless to us, because they are so similar to the way we expect acoustic instruments to sound and be used.
But the frequency content of your mixes is the exact opposite of Jarre's naturalistic approach, which in my view is the last missing piece you somehow keep missing - whether intentionally or unconsciously, I don't know.
You've got the notes, the rhythm and the feel of the original piece down, except for the way the sounds actually sound. Listening to your O2 cover, it's Jarre's most ambitious piece, and it's funny reading the people commending you on the timbral quality of the cover, which I feel is actually the weakest part of your cover - everything else being perfect.
Been meaning to tell you this for 4 or 5 years at least. Only out of an interest to see you conquer that last challenge, because, as you say, that's exactly what you want to do.
You already give the answer to your 'problem' right there. It's not the Mackie mixer, because it's not a bad mixer at all... It's how you revealed that your ears have been subjected to high levels of noise in the past.matt222 wrote:You guys are right - my mixes are poor and it's an area I am not good at and understand very little of any of the theory, so absolutely no offence taken
I agree I do get the sounds and notes close ( which is what I focus on )
I suspect it's my hearing that's been exposed to high noise for years
Is this why my recordings often sound small and weak?
Is it because I channel everything through an old Mackie 32.4 desk that's perhaps acting as a weak link?
I do notice that my High EQ dials are almost always towards max
Only 2 months ago did I manage to put a single track down in Reaper so I really am just useless with this aspect