BlahBlahCafe - Jean-Michel Jarre forum

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.

https://soundcloud.com/mattc-958632216/latest123

Sounds solid! But... when are you going to do a remix or something? I mean, there's already a JMJ and being a copycat is not that hard... Would like to hear something more original than just a 1-to-1 replica if you catch my drift? Where's the creativity?!

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

Off-topic, but I'd say my favorite non-replica JMJ cover this year is this one

Ha Ha - Love it

Finaero wrote:Off-topic, but I'd say my favorite non-replica JMJ cover this year is this one

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!

Although Matt, yes I understand where you are coming from, but recreating JMJ's sounds is not that hard really, since he himself mostly uses presets anyway (albeit layered or heavily processed and whatnot). I was absolutely not trying to downplay what you are doing, but an own view or take on a JMJ-recording would get me more hyped than just trying to meticilously recreate the original. If you want to have JMJ sounds, I can send you bunches, and they are all just presets from the original machines really...

What you do with the Revolutions album is great, it sounds like the original, there's almost no audible difference and that's a great achievement, but a little bit of your own take on it would be nice, make it interesting, spice it up... Like my remix i.e.

Jean-Michel Jarre - Industrial Revolution: Overture (Armandox Revolution Remix)

I'm not claiming that my remix is good or awesome or anything, but it's a different and original take on something that already has been written and done...

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 info@armandox.com

A new take on Equinoxe 6.........…

I just don't possess the talent to improve such pieces or even add an interesting spin on them so I occupy myself with the technical challenge of rebuilding the classics. Check out this - no presets used here - all made from scratch

https://soundcloud.com/mattc-958632216/oxygene-2-live

https://soundcloud.com/mattc-958632216/ ... tive-equi6

Your stuff is great by the way - and quality audio recordings ( unlike my rough efforts )

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 info@armandox.com

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(?).

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(?).

It's a mixture of sounds from the SDX, ADD1 and Fairlight CMI.

On Industrial Revolution: Overture i.e...

The snare is from the Simmons SDX: Brass Snare 1
The kick indeed the ADD1: PitchTailKick

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

You know matt, it's interesting that you say this.
Why?

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.

Armandox wrote:

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(?).

It's a mixture of sounds from the SDX, ADD1 and Fairlight CMI.

On Industrial Revolution: Overture i.e...

The snare is from the Simmons SDX: Brass Snare 1
The kick indeed the ADD1: PitchTailKick

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.

( Well, to my ears it seems to be the same one ;] )

Analog-Umph wrote:
You know matt, it's interesting that you say this.
Why?

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.

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.

Before continuing my post I strongly want to adress that I absolutely DO NOT want to put Matt down in his efforts and works he's doing, because I admire the way he recreates Jamie's music with the equipment he has, which is by all means a very good achievement in it's own and one to which I humbly bow my head!

That being said, the art of mixing (and also the way JMJ, or he wants his sound engineers to approach it) is one of tonality and frequency layers...

People more than once ask me how to mix a song, and I always tell them to look at music/sounds as a 3-story house. on the ground floor you have your drums and bass, on the second level are the guitars, keyboards, brass and other accompanying instruments. On the top floor finally the vocals and eventual leads/solo's...

Give each instrument it's own frequency range, and ONLY the frequency range that it really needs or is necessary for the part to 'sit right' in the mix. I.e. a bell sound (like the famous Fantasia patch on the D-50) on the keyboard in most songs doesn't need all the low-end (anything below 1k aboutish). So EQ that out (high-pass filter). Give each instrument it's space in the mix frequency-wise, and also some slight panning can create so much room for instruments to sit right. If you hear exceptional overtones in a sound which dominate, create a bell-curved EQ with a very small Q-factor, ramp up the dB of the EQ and go searching for it (use your ears and find it by sweeping through the frequency-band). Once you found it, drop the dB's to negative values to remove that from your mix. Basically... get rid of ALL the frequencies that your particular sound doesn't need, because it will clutter the mix, and it'll choke your multiband-compressor/limiter on the master-bus in ways you wouldn't believe!

Also be diligent in mixing into the sub-band (the low low-end) and the air-band (anything above 8 to 10Khz). It's a common mistake many people make when first mixing their tunes, and mostly because they don't have the right monitoring-equipment. I.o.w. their equipment colours the sound and they mix into that, which in turn results in a 'coloured' mix.

So my first and best advice would be, get a pair of really good (flat frequency-response and straight) nearfield monitors to mix your work on. Second comes into place some room treatment. You don't want too much reflections from your room, because they do colour your mixes. Third ofcoarse, use common sense and as with ANYTHING in music... less is more! Don't try to be fancy or anything, just do what is needed and makes it sound good and solid. Don't go fader-riding and such. If a part in your mix is inaudible, usually that part isn't to soft, but other parts are to loud...

Hope this all makes sense?

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

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

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.

I'm always am very careful with my ears (wear earplugs in high-noise environments) as they are part of my 'instrumentation'.

That being said... You know you limitation in that respect and probably and most likely your ears are lacking a pick-up of the high-frequencies because of that. If you know that limitation you can mix around it still... Also a spectrum-analyzer could help you in such cases. Looking at a waveform (although your ears should be the main means of creating and mixing your works) can surely help you to at least get a visual representation of what you are doing.

If you want I can mix a track for you (if you dropbox me the stems) so that you can A/B it against your own mix? Might be a step towards understanding your mixes more? Let me know...