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?

Edited by user 21 January 2017 05:41:23(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

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

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?

Edited by user 30 January 2017 12:55:19(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

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