Have people forgotten how to remix?

Ok, now, this is something that`s bugging me a bit. I had a lot of people asking to do remixes for DB records. Now the problem I have is that these days, records are full of remixes, and these remixes never bear even a slight resemblance to the original track they are taken from. For the most part they are just original tracks, with some tiny and obscure hint of the original.

My opinion is, if you are gonna do an original track, then do and original track, don`t try and hide it under the guise of a remix.

And if a remix is done, then how about actually remixing, you know, using some of the parts of the original in a recognisable, but intelligent way.

Any other opinions?

A good example of a prefectly executed remix for me would be, the Jark Prongo, and Laidback Luke remixes of salt and peppers "Push It", and the Hardfloor Remix of New Orders Blue Monday.

Yeah, I agree. A lot of remixes have little, or nothing to do with the track they are supposed to be a mix of. It just feels like the producer had a tune kicking round the studio which he hadn't released yet, so he just finished it off, and pawned it off as a "remix" by adding a few vocal snippets or something. Rip off!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teknorich

Yeah, I agree. A lot of remixes have little, or nothing to do with the track they are supposed to be a mix of. It just feels like the producer had a tune kicking round the studio which he hadn't released yet, so he just finished it off, and pawned it off as a "remix" by adding a few vocal snippets or something. Rip off!!!

---

Yea. I agree with what your saying.

yeah me too. Either remix the original or don't call it a "remix". I don't buy that "well, I've listened to the original track and it inspired me to write this, it sounds completely different but we'll still call it a remix" crap.

ive just been caught out by this..

Ive just finished a remix for a dutch label which was a right mission.. The parts i was supplied were so thin and meaningless that there was just nothing tangible to work with. Its difficult to get somthing interesting out of such generic sounds without completly morphing them into somthing different. So i hate to say it but i am guilty of now doing a remix which only has the percussion of the original and i either completly rewrote everything else or morphed it into obvlivion. i honestly tried for weeks spending hours every day trying to use the original shit but i just wasnt feeling it and had made a promise so...
Anyway Ive learned my lesson from it and now im not going to even bother trying unless i have a good feeling about it.

the "remix" did turn out pretty darn phat though ;)

it might sound wierd but actually remixes somehow testify what artist do we deal with
- real or tainted musician. if he turns track into particullar new tune which has own vibe thats ok but the worst thing to hear the SAME snippet with solely kick drum and breakdown changed :roll:

I understand the thinking behind this, but there are arguments on both sides. Firstly, I agree that when you listen to a lot of modern remixes they aren't really remixes at all. A remix means just that - a change in the mix of a track i.e. more effects on this sound, the snare a bit louder, fading out 20 seconds earlier etc etc. This is why, with techno and electronic music generally in which there is a "remix culture", I've always preferred to use words such as "interpretation" or "version", as often the end result is anything but a remix.

BUT - it should be remembered that as we have this "remix culture" it is used in different ways. Often asking someone to do a remix is a strategic move. Remixers are often brought in to boost sales through their own popularity, or to attract a new segment of a fragmented dance scene. What you want in that case is something that really sounds more like an original track by the remixer - in order that their fans come buy the record for the remix, and possibly take an interest in the remixed artist's work or the label it's released on. In fact this needn't be a purely financial way of thinking - it may just be more interesting to have artists who produce differing styles of your own or other genres to mess about with your own material. The results are often intriguing.

To be honest I get a bit tired of hearing remix packs where you have 8 versions of an already over-played techno "hit".

imo all the greatest techno remixes sound nothing like their original versions (JB3 - "Forklift" turned inside out by Luke Slater, Iishi's "Extra" also by Slater, Steve Bicknell's track on Cosmic, also remixed by Slater (hmmm, a pattern here), all of Aphex Twin's early 90s remixes, Hardfloor remixing Robert Armani, Plastikman remixes, etc etc.

Hands up for Jamie Bissmire.
Just received his remix from one of my tracks.
All the outtakes were used... And he made something really wicked out of this....


Promo's available in a couple of weeks. :)

I have to go with Jimfish on this one. Remix parts are usually next to horrible and I think that is the reason most remixes are usually "original" tracks. Most producers claim they like doing remixes mainly because it isn't as much work. I actually find remixes to be more work than writing an original track yourself because now you're stuck with something you HAVE to add.

This subject is also a double edged sword. Who wants to buy a 4 tracker where every track nearly sounds the same? I guess if a producer is going to do a remix, I'd rather have them take the parts and do it in there own style that represents them as an artist, no matter how much it resembles the original. After all, that is what you're paying them for.

yup totally agree - it's all down to the parts you're provided with to do the mix.

christ we've had some really awful parts through and it gives you no inspiration whatsover. but yet they still want the mix done. you really can't win in this situation and the result is something that really doesnt sound like a remix!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MARK EG

christ we've had some really awful parts through and it gives you no inspiration whatsover. but yet they still want the mix done. you really can't win in this situation and the result is something that really doesnt sound like a remix!

---

As bad as that situation is it doesn't compare to the " we don't have the parts can you just sample the record " routine ,thats my favourite ;)

a good remix is james ruskin's mixes of dave clarkes new tune. they bear a massive resemlance to the origional, but still making it different.

Perhaps the best remix package I've ever heard is Interpretations, a double pack on Producer's hardcore techno label Rebel Scum. All clearly remixes of the originals, but still sounding fresh. That's the sort of inspiration people should be looking for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herman

As bad as that situation is it doesn't compare to the " we don't have the parts can you just sample the record " routine ,thats my favourite ;)

---

Amen to that! I've actually had that method work out for me before better than using the parts they provided me with.

gotta love it when the synth or drum sounds decent wet with FX, but they provide you the crappy dry sample that resembles nothing from the sound in the actual track.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ampassasinbirmingham

a good remix is james ruskin's mixes of dave clarkes new tune. they bear a massive resemlance to the origional, but still making it different.

---

yeah that is a good example of how a remix should be imo.

i think "the perfect remix" should keep the identity of the original, whilst expressing a different perspective.

what i dont like to hear is almost identical tracks, id rather hear something completely different to the original rather than a very subtle change.

most of the remixes that I buy fall into two categories.

- remix by guest artist: these are mostly tracks that are remixed by somebody completely different. This normally involves adding a completely new percussion track and restructuring the melody and sampling. These are good because they often provide you with the track that fits with key styles you play.

- remix by artist or friends: these are mostly remixes done by people close to the artist at a later date. These are often the best quality because they are more likely to have access to base files and set-up - and progress the track.

My two favourate remixes are Can - Sacralidge and SUFR13 - Radio On One

id have to say go with what makes you feel good cos inspiration can come from anywhere and we are all individuals after all.
we like something but then we'd like to take that 'like' and move it in a new direction,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by death on a stick

imo all the greatest techno remixes sound nothing like their original versions (JB3 - "Forklift" turned inside out by Luke Slater, Iishi's "Extra" also by Slater, Steve Bicknell's track on Cosmic, also remixed by Slater (hmmm, a pattern here), all of Aphex Twin's early 90s remixes, Hardfloor remixing Robert Armani, Plastikman remixes, etc etc.

---

Some great ones there, and speaking of whom.. Steve Bicknell's mix of Joey Beltram on Tresor is a gem.

i dont like to blow my brothers trumpet, lol, but hes just done a ****ing unbelievable remix for energyuk records! havent heard the original yet so cant comment on how much of the original he has used, but will see if the euk guys can upload a sample!

a remix should be a remix. If its going into morphing shounds into inaudable versions of the original then id call it a re work.

I agree with you all with what you are saying but if you are writing a new track, is it ok to call it a remix? It feels to me that, as mentioned before, this is totally a marketing gimmick. If it is completely different why are we calling it a remix? I think a remix should be a different interpretation of the original, like the expansion of the original.
If you don't like the original why are you remixing it in the first place? Either for money or you feel like some changes/additions would correct/improve the original. If you can take something that is average and then create a masterpiece out of it then you are the true remixer.
Hearing overplayed tracks is a different subject imo. If I am tired of hearing the same record, I wouldn't buy/play simillar sounding shit in the first place. So when I'm looking for a remix, It's either I know/like the original track or the remixer(producer) and have an expectation about what the remix would sound like. When you get a completely different track, it is a dissapointment as far as the remix business goes, although as you have mentioned before most of the times so called "remix" is much better than the original. And if all the remixes on a release sound the same, well then that's the label's fault.

well, yeah...

Well, I liked the concept that Cisco of The Advent did of calling some of his remixes which had very little in common with the originals "remakes". Not only does it sound cooler, it dignifies the work of the artist who did the reworking much more than "remix" does, which implies you're simply rearranging predefined elements.

As a remixer, the concept of completely rebuilding the track into something different is very appealing despite being more work than a simple retread. As a record buyer, being able to buy a record with one track plus remixes and effectively get 4 unique tunes out of it is also a better bargain than a series of mixes with the same concept and layouts. To me a good remix should have at least one familiar element from the original tune while creating a different mood or perspective. Cross-genre remixes are especially interesting as well, such as the Kraftwerk Expo 2000 remix series that came out.

Why then, if you want diversity, then get the artists to make original tracks and not pretend remixes.
A quality remix can still be a whole new tune but with recognisable elements and main hooks.

Admittedly with some techno, it gets remixed, and its a percussive track to start with. So there is no real hook to remix, but I always find these remixes (drumcode etc) tedious, and similar to a jukebox phukkin itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dirty_bass

Why then, if you want diversity, then get the artists to make original tracks and not pretend remixes.

---

There's something nice about the idea of other artists creating something that is in some way inspired/based on another piece of work. It's also interesting to see how different the result that artist x produces is from the result that artist y produces.

Quote:

---

There's something nice about the idea of other artists creating something that is in some way inspired/based on another piece of work. It's also interesting to see how different the result that artist x produces is from the result that artist y produces.

---

Oh cmon, the real drive here is ego, let`s face it. Artist X gives Artists Y parts for a remix. Artists Y thinks, "yeah, I`m gonna kill this" and just mashes it all up and makes his own tune. There`s very little "inspiration in 70% of the remixes I hear".

The other motivator, is getting a bigger name remix for a label, in the hope that it raises the profile of the label, which is just kak really. Hijacking a piece of someone elses name.

Oh and then there`s the, "well let`s give the new kid a chance, but I don`t wanna get overshadowed, so I`ll make him do a remix, that way, it`s still a bit of me, rather than an original tune, cos he might do too good"

Call me pessimistic, but I`m sure there`s some truth in what I say.

yes dirty bass you are absolutely right! :clap:

and often the big names who are paid for a remix often do bad work, they are not inspired and it's more a job than art...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MARK EG

christ we've had some really awful parts through and it gives you no inspiration whatsover. but yet they still want the mix done. you really can't win in this situation and the result is something that really doesnt sound like a remix!

---

As bad as that situation is it doesn't compare to the " we don't have the parts can you just sample the record " routine ,thats my favourite ;)

---

oh that's hilarious - that's happened to me this week!!!! i mean what sort of inspiration is that?!?!!!

yeah, that really sucks, I guess you can pretty much work out the motivation of the people asking for the remixes if they don`t even supply the parts :doh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dirty_bass

Ok, now, this is something that`s bugging me a bit. I had a lot of people asking to do remixes for DB records. Now the problem I have is that these days, records are full of remixes, and these remixes never bear even a slight resemblance to the original track they are taken from. For the most part they are just original tracks, with some tiny and obscure hint of the original.

My opinion is, if you are gonna do an original track, then do and original track, don`t try and hide it under the guise of a remix.

And if a remix is done, then how about actually remixing, you know, using some of the parts of the original in a recognisable, but intelligent way.

Any other opinions?

A good example of a prefectly executed remix for me would be, the Jark Prongo, and Laidback Luke remixes of salt and peppers "Push It", and the Hardfloor Remix of New Orders Blue Monday.

---

not too sure but gimme some of your bits and ill have a go at a PROPER remix... ;)

personally i'd rather buy a remix that is very different to the original track - i cannot see the point of putting out a remix that is almost the same as the original - i thought the whole idea of remixing was to see the different take that a fresh artist brings to a similar starting point ...
as to sampling offa da record - obviously you are gonna get a finished remix further removed from the original than if the parts are supplied and it requires a bit more input from the remixer ... we are working on a remix of a track four years old right now and the parts just were not there for the remix so we have had to sample from vinyl

whatever anyway it's all good if you ask me - just some of it is not to my taste

;)

i tried to do a remix once
but i forgot how to do it

so i went to the pub

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davethedrummer

i tried to do a remix once
but i forgot how to do it

so i went to the pub

;)

---

hahahaha :lol: :lol:

forgetting how to do it would of course imply that you once actually knew how to do it henry ...

sorry but i can't believe you were ever party to that knowledge, mate

;)

surgeon mix of rue east - birmingham is an excellent remix of an already great track.

for me remixes which appear on the same piece of vinyl should be very different to the original, so that u get a nice package for your cash.

its nice to hear remixes that compliment the original, i.e. keep alot of the main elements, but i'd prefer to hear these on seperate releases

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waldhaus

and often the big names who are paid for a remix often do bad work, they are not inspired and it's more a job than art...

---

Getting bigger names than yourself is always a crap shoot, especially if techno is what they do for a living....because for them, remixes are one of the easiest ways to put food on the table besides DJ gigs, and sometimes it's painfully obvious in what you get for your dollar.

A certain big name producer did this to someone I know. The mix he did is actually getting played by people due to his name, but IMHO it's not NEARLY as good as the original and not nearly as good a job as he is capable of. I reamed this producer out (who I consider a friend) for not doing his best work for these people, whom he also considers friends.

That said, I've been offered a chance to have a certain big name producer remix on one of my upcoming records. Despite the fact that he is someone I consider a friend, is a big fan and supporter of the stuff I put out on this particular label, and has offered to do the remix for 1/3rd of the price because of these things I'm somewhat apprehensive because of the above.