Quality control on remixes ????

Message

finn88 · #16 Post by **finn88** » Wed 12 Jul 2006, 2:21 pm

What's wrong with Heart (Remix) and It must be Obvious (UFO Mix). Granted the later is not a danceable song, but the KLF (which have done a lot of this sort of experimental sound - not music) did a fantastic job with that. Heart (Remix) which can be found either on a demo vinyl or on one of the Aurally collections,is different, but it is far from bad. I agree, some of the I wouldn't normally do this kind of thing and Liberation remixes are by far the worst. There are others which are just plain boring, but those are the worst in my opinion.

Shopper · #17 Post by **Shopper** » Wed 12 Jul 2006, 3:01 pm

I thought the Tomcraft mix had an intriguing intro and sounds promising till about 1.09 and then goes awry ! its definetly better than the Fundamentalism mix IMO

but yeah, it would be nice to use some established mixers from time to time. The minimal mixes are quite a nice varied bunch. Esp good are Toca, M and Telex Hell. I'm a big fan of Superchumbo..but this one's just too dark/underground ! did he do a vocal mix as well ?

! · #18 Post by ! » Wed 12 Jul 2006, 3:54 pm

Tomcraft's mix is waaaay better than the Stuart Crichton one! The vocals don't really go that well tho....

Joemoz · #19 Post by **Joemoz** » Wed 12 Jul 2006, 4:22 pm

BlueSwan wrote:
Joemoz wrote:I don't know about that but it was lucky for the boys that he didn't just keep the money without making the remix like you surely would have...
Actually, I think everybody would have been better off if he'd done just that.

Still, that kind of thing is actually criminal fraud. Surely we wouldn't want our boys subjected to such a thief? Would we allow him as a member of our forum then?

glennjridge · #20 Post by **glennjridge** » Wed 12 Jul 2006, 4:28 pm

I only like remixes where they keep the whole vocal intact or at least have it enough so its still interesting and feels like a song such as mobys fantastic miserablism remix.

finn88 · #21 Post by **finn88** » Wed 12 Jul 2006, 9:55 pm

Moby's remix of miserablism is quite good. Unfortunately others aren't as good. Have a listen to his remix of blurs 'Beetlebum', or Smashing Pumpkins '1979', no vocal, just boring sound. His remix of Michael Jackson's 'Beat It' on the other hnd is excellent.

Debussy · #22 Post by **Debussy** » Thu 13 Jul 2006, 5:59 am

It's all art isnt it?

Hillbilly · #23 Post by **Hillbilly** » Thu 13 Jul 2006, 11:41 am

finn88 wrote:Moby's remix of miserablism is quite good. Unfortunately others aren't as good. Have a listen to his remix of blurs 'Beetlebum', or Smashing Pumpkins '1979', no vocal, just boring sound. His remix of Michael Jackson's 'Beat It' on the other hnd is excellent.

If a remix is "no vocal, just boring sound" and the sounds are made by the remixer (which I guess is the case), how can you say it is still a Blur/Smashing Pumpkins/Pet Shop Boys/whoever song anymore? That's why I hate remixes!

I thought that the word re-mix really means to do another mix out of the existing recorded sources, not to re-record and add instruments and so on?

Burj · #24 Post by **Burj** » Thu 13 Jul 2006, 12:12 pm

Yes, remixes were originally just a slightly different mix of extended version of the original track, usually by the producer or engineer of the original record.

As they progressed to being handed over to DJs and other artists to remodel as one of their own tracks they effectively cease to be a remix in technical terms. Maybe they should be renamed - instead of 'remix by' it should be something like 'reinterpretation by' or 'remodelled by'...

Madge · #25 Post by **Madge** » Thu 13 Jul 2006, 10:11 pm

karmavore wrote:I’d say they have an cutting-edge and experimental history with remixers. Generally they work with fresh and breaking talent. They generally don’t work with people who are established and over-used.

Compare a Depeche Mode, Madonna or New Order singe to one from the boys.

I've never singed anything in my life. Def Leppard are the pyromaniacs of music - not me.

Hillbilly · #26 Post by **Hillbilly** » Thu 13 Jul 2006, 11:02 pm

Burj wrote:Yes, remixes were originally just a slightly different mix of extended version of the original track, usually by the producer or engineer of the original record.

As they progressed to being handed over to DJs and other artists to remodel as one of their own tracks they effectively cease to be a remix in technical terms. Maybe they should be renamed - instead of 'remix by' it should be something like 'reinterpretation by' or 'remodelled by'...

That's a good suggestion! Let's call it a "remodellation" (or what about "remodulation"?) instead of a "remix".

Debussy · #27 Post by **Debussy** » Thu 13 Jul 2006, 11:39 pm

Hillbilly wrote:
finn88 wrote: I thought that the word re-mix really means to do another mix out of the existing recorded sources, not to re-record and add instruments and so on?

What you're talking about is a re-edit which is a rearrangement or extension of existing elements. Remixes now are mostly re-interpretations of songs but are mostly aimed at a club environment.
I would love to hear an extended Trevor Horn edit of Minimal.