My 'Blue Monday' Live Looping Cover

Hey everyone! I'm a musician and I am a huge New Order fan, so I decided to pay tribute to them and do a live looping performance of the best synth pop song of all time, 'Blue Monday'. I recorded everything live on real time as you can see on the video, let me know if you like it! Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trsoMQ\_sK-4 [:eek] Also, which other of their songs should I cover??

One of the recommended videos on the right hand side of that video was the one below. It's kinda fun to watch a "pro" recreating BM. Skip the first 5.01 minutes if you don't want to hear about Donna Summer/Sylvester/Klein & MBO/Kraftwerk.

Incidentally, I'm guessing "Ski" got a lot of the parts such as the Bernard vocal and Hooky bass from those stems that someone mentioned on the forum a while ago. I didn't try to put them all together but I noticed that all the parts (apart from the Synths01 bit which was 4.13) were 08.09 long, with the 'exploding' noise at the end of "Synths 02" marking a hard ending rather than the fade out. Did anyone here put the parts together properly to get an 8.09 version of BM?

this deconstruction of blue monday is cool also:

later -1

Debaser wrote:

Incidentally, I'm guessing "Ski" got a lot of the parts such as the Bernard vocal and Hooky bass from those stems that someone mentioned on the forum a while ago.

I didn't try to put them all together but I noticed that all the parts (apart from the Synths01 bit which was 4.13) were 08.09 long, with the 'exploding' noise at the end of "Synths 02" marking a hard ending rather than the fade out. Did anyone here put the parts together properly to get an 8.09 version of BM?

the ones that i got were all at the wrong speed, so i had to speed them up, so the 'fixed' version is 7:42, not 8:09,

here it is with cold ending: new order -Blue Monday(new ending fixed).mp3

Link: http://www21.zippyshare.com/v/aXDA7g00/file.html

later -1

Thanks. Your PM inbox is full. Can you fix?

negative1 wrote: the ones that i got were all at the wrong speed, so i had to speed them up, so the 'fixed' version is 7:42, not 8:09,

Did you speed the track up after putting the parts together?

Just listening to your version again now and comparing it to the Substance CD (timed at 7.29). The re-emergence of Hook's bass at 6.08 on Substance doesn't happen until about 6.17 on your re-constructed version. I think the track is still running a tiny bit slow, and sounds a tiny smidge of an octave lower than the original version. So I guess you could knock about nine seconds off your time of 7.42 to get about 7.33, if the track was running at the same speed as the original. It seems that the fade-out reached silence just three or four seconds before the cold ending. Also the synthy bit at 5.46 to 5.53 (and beyond) on Substance has an effect that isn't on the reconstruction (5.55-6.02). Not your fault of course, just a nit-picky observation. Still, it's nice to hear it without fading out.

ps According to Wikipedia the 1985 Qwest pressing 0-20332 of BM was 7.38. Anyone know how/why?

That's brilliant mate, well done!

Debaser wrote:

negative1 wrote: the ones that i got were all at the wrong speed, so i had to speed them up, so the 'fixed' version is 7:42, not 8:09,

Did you speed the track up after putting the parts together?

Just listening to your version again now and comparing it to the Substance CD (timed at 7.29). The re-emergence of Hook's bass at 6.08 on Substance doesn't happen until about 6.17 on your re-constructed version. I think the track is still running a tiny bit slow, and sounds a tiny smidge of an octave lower than the original version. So I guess you could knock about nine seconds off your time of 7.42 to get about 7.33, if the track was running at the same speed as the original. It seems that the fade-out reached silence just three or four seconds before the cold ending. Also the synthy bit at 5.46 to 5.53 (and beyond) on Substance has an effect that isn't on the reconstruction (5.55-6.02). Not your fault of course, just a nit-picky observation. Still, it's nice to hear it without fading out.

ps According to Wikipedia the 1985 Qwest pressing 0-20332 of BM was 7.38. Anyone know how/why?

yes, it was easier to speed up the final version, than to do it part by part.

i did it quite awhile ago, but never checked it against the accuracy of the original.

i also remember having to do some sample rate conversion from 48 to 44.1 also..

later -1