# Danny Elfman | The Simpsons Theme | Re-make



## alexballmusic (Oct 8, 2017)

A complete re-make of Danny Elfman's infamous Simpsons Theme. What do you guys reckon? Any pointers?



Woodwinds: Spitfire Audio Symphonic Woodwinds
Brass: Cinebrass Core & Pro, Sample Modelling Trumpets and Trombones, Albion FX
Percussion: Spitfire Joby Burgess Percussion, Harp = Orchestral Tools
Strings: Spitfire Audio Chamber Strings, LA Scoring Strings
Real instruments: 
Vocals and piano (Yamaha U3 mic'd with two condensors) - Alex Ball 
Alto, tenor and baritone sax - Charlotte Glasson

FX - Waves compressors and EQ, Pasttothefuture reverb impulses
Sequencer - Cubase 6 (yes I _really_ need to upgrade, but can't afford the down time)


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Oct 8, 2017)

Overall, awesome work! Brass, piano, strings sound fantastic. Woodwinds are always the hardest to nail (see 1:03), so I won't grill you on those, but perhaps they're a little 'close' in comparison to the rest.
Really enjoyed listening to it, particularly the brass bends at 0:57!


----------



## alexballmusic (Oct 8, 2017)

Jdiggity1 said:


> Overall, awesome work! Brass, piano, strings sound fantastic. Woodwinds are always the hardest to nail (see 1:03), so I won't grill you on those, but perhaps they're a little 'close' in comparison to the rest.
> Really enjoyed listening to it, particularly the brass bends at 0:57!



Thanks. Yeah, woods were difficult to sit. Tree mics were too blurry and muddy and close were a bit bitey in this one. Probably because they're playing such fast runs. Will keep an eye on that.

Brass - sample modelling came into its own on that because it has all the jazzy articulations. I layered it over the cinebrass stuff. Was difficult to balance as the sample modelling libs are dead dry and cinebrass is the opposite. So I'm glad that sounded ok to your ears.


----------



## Grim_Universe (Oct 8, 2017)

Love it


----------



## StephenForsyth (Oct 8, 2017)

Considering the difficulty in mocking up music of this energy and orchestration I'd say you smashed it.


----------



## J-M (Oct 9, 2017)

I'd give you another thumbs up if I could!


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Oct 9, 2017)

Cool Work! Overall I like it and I appreciate your try because this is a tedious stupid and tiring work to do with samples.

Apart from that you are fighting against the original which is done live and that is hard to get done properly, if not I would say leave it..and just don´t do it.

anyways, here are few observations which I think could be "slightly" improved:

Vocals:
- Your recorded vocals sound like they have a poor room or reverb. The vocals are missing the close miced direct mixed signal, just make it a bit more in your face and try using different vocal plates..

Harp: Too wet..and the performance needs adjustments, the run glissando is imo wrong and the highest note is not right which is crucial for the harmonic feel in relation to the vocals.

Vln Pizzis:

They are bit too..much on the point, and also too wet, more close miced, not so much of wide stereo also..they are also darker in their tone, less highs. (probably a slight highcut)

The Sax thing:

The original is blending equally sax and flute 8va. They are pretty much equal. In your example the Sax is very dominating and

The Run:

Louder! The run is also not eniterly correct, it goes up but the small patterns which are having a tendency of small down scales. But it is hard to tell but especially the starting is not right. Also the programming and sound needs more bite and aritculation. it is too wishi washy in your example.

Trombones

At 23 seconds the trombones are definitely coming and in the original they supporting the last 3 notes with that "dan dan dan ....dann!" They play a harmony I think.

The wood wind runs (26 seconds)

They are way too low in volume. They are also too wet.. I think in general this track you did is mega cool but a way too wet with too much reverb which makes it not in your face.

Drums at (29 seconds)

are a way louder and they really hammer in your head. Listen again to the original..


I could go and add more of this things. In my opinion you should make a complete overwork of your track. It is a good or very good start but you missed imo a lot of details WHICH are CRUCIAL to make it RIGHT. And the original slaps your butt merciless because of all this details. When I listen to your mockup just in isolation without referencing the original, then some of the points are not so obvious of course. You know..like I said: If you really like to _test your might_, then do it, but you have to put a way more of fine tuning work into it. I believe you are capable of doing it, because your programming and transcribing skills are definitely a way above the way average ! Looking forward to hear more!


----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Oct 9, 2017)

That sounds great - nice work! But I don't understand how you can be so thorough with some aspects, but miss fairly easy bits - like the phrase just before 00:57 that ends on an E. Surely that's supposed to be a D? I'll check the original but that really sticks out as being wrong.


----------



## kaiyoti (Oct 9, 2017)

I'm a big fan of your remakes, you are a wizard at producing.


----------



## alexballmusic (Oct 9, 2017)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Cool Work! Overall I like it and I appreciate your try because this is a tedious stupid and tiring work to do with samples.
> 
> Apart from that you are fighting against the original which is done live and that is hard to get done properly, if not I would say leave it..and just don´t do it.
> 
> ...




Thanks hugely for taking the time to give thorough feedback. Really helps to get down to the details and point out all the little things.

Agree with all the points. I was aware of some of them, but just couldn't get it to sound right. For example, I did just use close mics, but they're still quite wet sounding on the libraries I'm using, especially compared to the original recording.

Would be worth doing another pass at some point to see if I could really chisel away at getting everything from the vsts.

Thanks again - really great points.


----------



## alexballmusic (Oct 9, 2017)

wilx said:


> That sounds great - nice work! But I don't understand how you can be so thorough with some aspects, but miss fairly easy bits - like the phrase just before 00:57 that ends on an E. Surely that's supposed to be a D? I'll check the original but that really sticks out as being wrong.



I'll check that. I have the score, so it should be right (unless I played it in wrong, which is obviously possible)


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Oct 9, 2017)

alexballmusic said:


> Thanks hugely for taking the time to give thorough feedback. Really helps to get down to the details and point out all the little things.
> 
> Agree with all the points. I was aware of some of them, but just couldn't get it to sound right. For example, I did just use close mics, but they're still quite wet sounding on the libraries I'm using, especially compared to the original recording.
> 
> ...



Yes, that is no problem at all. I know that spitfire close micings are still very wet and not that desirable function as some lets say..spot or stage mics in a smaller room. Still kudos to the work. Maybe you can at least work on some more obvious parts just to see how far you can go. Would be interesting to see.


----------



## NoamL (Oct 10, 2017)

The modulations actually make perfect sense...

Here is how it works. As you pointed out, the C Lydian b7 scale contains two tritones (C-F#, E-Bb) Put them together, and you just generated two 7b5 chords which are native to the scale: C7b5 _*or*_ F#7b5 depending on how you stack em. Danny was possibly inspired by this symmetry and the idea of tritone substitution. Normally F#7 -> B but we can substitute the dominant seventh chord a tritone away: C7 -> B.

So the piece goes like this:

1. Noodling along in C Lydian b7
2. Bring up C7b5 which serves as tritone sub of F#7 taking us into the key of B
3. Noodling along in B Lydian b7
4. Imply F7b5 which tritone subs B7 taking us into the key of E
5. Noodling along in E Lydian b7

So these lurching modulations which look batshit crazy are actually "native" and "diatonic" you could say, to the non-Euclidean world of this zany scale.


----------



## alexballmusic (Oct 10, 2017)

NoamL said:


> The modulations actually make perfect sense...
> 
> Here is how it works. As you pointed out, the C Lydian b7 scale contains two tritones (C-F#, E-Bb) Put them together, and you just generated two 7b5 chords which are native to the scale: C7b5 _*or*_ F#7b5 depending on how you stack em. Danny was possibly inspired by this symmetry and the idea of tritone substitution. Normally F#7 -> B but we can substitute the dominant seventh chord a tritone away: C7 -> B.
> 
> ...



Yep, that's totally it. I didn't have time or space to fit that into the video. So I put "pivot" through unusual key changes.

The flat 5 (or #4) can be used as the 5th degree of the key a semi-tone down. So that sounds totally natural to the ear. And as the perfect 5th and b7th are also in that scale, you can imply the tonic chord is the dominant chord and modulate. So B to E modulation via a B7 chord, which is what he does.


----------



## alexballmusic (Oct 10, 2017)

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> Yes, that is no problem at all. I know that spitfire close micings are still very wet and not that desirable function as some lets say..spot or stage mics in a smaller room. Still kudos to the work. Maybe you can at least work on some more obvious parts just to see how far you can go. Would be interesting to see.



Yeah, I think different libraries would do a better job on getting closer to the original. Wonder if the Herrmann library would sound better. But definitely plenty of fixable things you've pointed out.

Appreciate the pointers. This is basically like peer review and helps me improve. Especially as it's easy to hear things so many times as you make them that you miss the wood for the trees.


----------



## alexballmusic (Oct 10, 2017)

wilx said:


> That sounds great - nice work! But I don't understand how you can be so thorough with some aspects, but miss fairly easy bits - like the phrase just before 00:57 that ends on an E. Surely that's supposed to be a D? I'll check the original but that really sticks out as being wrong.



The transcribed score I have has it as an E, the original handwritten score has it as a D. There's a lesson for me in using my ears! Good spot.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/261j6kj9lvjebwl/Phrase transcribed.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5h8t88ax5t68381/Phrase handwritten.jpg?dl=0


----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Oct 10, 2017)

alexballmusic said:


> The transcribed score I have has it as an E, the original handwritten score has it as a D. There's a lesson for me in using my ears! Good spot.
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/261j6kj9lvjebwl/Phrase transcribed.jpg?dl=0
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/5h8t88ax5t68381/Phrase handwritten.jpg?dl=0


 Interesting! I don't have the scores so was going off my memory of the theme, and later the youtube video of it! Great work regardless. Love hearing these detailed mockups/breakdowns.


----------

