Can a "ReMix" be a Rewrite?

[fader8]

To be honest, remixing has never had much appeal for me. Perhaps it's the notion that taking somebody's perfectly good song and twisting it to your own will feels somehow disrespectful to the original composers intent and the performers that created the thing in the first place. Then again, I'm all for improving on and improvising on a theme. I always think about Yes's version of Simon & Garfunkel's "America". Loyal to the composers intent, but different and playful at the same time. Definitely done as a compliment to the composers work. I realize that falls into the definition of "cover" song, but it helps illustrate my point.

 

Anyway, I was checking out the submissions to the ReMix - Crystal Method contest in an attempt to understand this better. After downloading the stems and listening to the song, I was amazed at how many submissions had very little to do with the original song, its structure, even its genre in some cases. Really, some of them are completely different songs, with vague suggestion that they're using some sampled sounds from the tune. No regard for the songs structure, hook, melodic lines, harmony, etc.

 

I may be old school, but the way I see it is if you're going to go to all that trouble to remix something, why don't you just write the damn song yourself in the first place!

 

So my point, and my question is, can it still be considered a "ReMix" if it no longer resembles the original song in any musically definable way?

[David Nahmani]

A lot of remixes have very little to do with the original, maybe except the vocals. I once did a remix for Switchblade Symphony, where I diced the vocals and added some effects to them, then rearranged them and literally produced a new track for them. Tempo, chord progressions, all sounds were changed. Except for the vocals, the final result had little to do with the original!

 

Track #6 on this album.

[fader8]

I once did a remix for Switchblade Symphony, where I diced the vocals and added some effects to them, then rearranged them and literally produced a new track for them.

So, you're saying it can still be considered a remix if musically it has no recognizable elements from the original song? Or did the vocals give it away?

 

I guess I'm still wondering where "remix" stops and "whole new song" begins! By definition anyway. In one sense, if you write a song and use someone else's sounds, it's considered stealing. But if you call it a remix of the original song, then it's OK. See where I'm going with this?

 

I'm not referring to the commercial/legal aspects of songwriting and producing, just trying to suss what "remix" is from an intellectual standpoint.

[Pandasarus]

i think they do constitute a 'remix' as it is a different interpretation using the same vocals. a friend of mine whos remixed for Mum, flaming lips, beck, John Tejada, Silversun Pickups, as well as my band to name a few only uses the vocal tracks and maybe melodies of other instruments but never the instruments themselves to do his 'remixes'. What is strange is that iron and wine did a cover of one of his songs and just went the complete other way with it and just used acoustic guitar and his voice for a totally different approach to the exact same melody. its really neat i think when other people show you their interpretations of your songs or songs you already know in another environment or context. Anyway, so back to the question at hand; I do think a rewrite is in fact a remix since you are using the main instrument (vocals) for the most part and building on that as your foundation.

 

love,

pandas

[DocBop]

My view is if you are using part of the original tracks it is a remix. I would say the question is where is the line between a remix, and sampling parts of song to use in your own. If only using the bits of vocal, horn line, bass, some hook from a song is that a remix or a new song. At what point does copyright has to be split. You add a verse to a song you can copyright that verse.

 

Then fader8's comment about people doing other songs different that is rearrangement not a remix. In fact if copyright law is still what it was way back when you can copyright an arrangement of a song.

 

My friend is like fader8 in that he doesn't like remixes or rearrangements that the originals are sacred. He is a HUGE Beatles fan and even the George Martin mashups send him into a rage. Personally I think there is a place for all of it and judge each on its own merit.

[Pandasarus]

i was under the impression that we were talking about Band A asking remix guy to do a remix and remix guy only using the vocals and building a song around that. So, all the legal stuff would not be a part of this conversation since the people/ person that wrote the jam are out looking for someone to do a remix therefore there are no laws being bended or broken since they have given remix guy the creative license to do what he wants to with their original composition. Am i making sense here?

 

P

[ski]

The whole notion of remixing is essentially founded on the idea of taking a song, stripping away most (if not all) of the original elements except the vocal and creating a new arrangement around it. It can go so far as to use only a single phrase from the vocal; and dub mixes of such remixes may contain no vocal (i.e., instrumental versions of the new arrangement, and then, variations on that as well).

 

Most of my work for the NY remixers (back in the day) was all about what I just described. Sometimes the original key wasn't even taken into consideration (to create cool sounding rubs). We did "dark" mixes of happy pop tracks, near-acapellas with only (new) atmospheric pads, you name it. But there was always a "main" remix version.

 

Sometimes the remix becomes the "main" version (as heard on commercial radio). This happened for a Simply Red track that I worked on many years ago (the title escapes me at the moment). Which brings me to...

 

"Radio remixing" -- when an album track is specifically remixed to sound good/better on the radio (mixer Tony Maserati is well-known for this). In this case, the arrangement stays the same, it's just re-engineered (essentially).

 

But yes, classic remixing is basically "having your way" with a song. But in terms of it being a re-write, technically it is, but as far as copyright is concerned, it is not. No matter how much you mangle an existing song, the original writers own the copyright.

[android]

Someone had given me vocals only for a remix. I then left town to work on it, only to find that I didn't have the original track, never heard the original track, and had no idea what order the vocals were supposed to go in. So, I "re-interpreted" the song. It worked out rather well, and the band ended up reworking the vocals to match the "re-interpretation".

 

Being that, I think that a remix can be either a different version of the same song (especially in the 80s, ala Julien Mendahlson), or a complete redo (like Ulrich Schnauss).

[dryfish]

The way I see it,gone are the days when remix virtually meant just that. With the advent of house/electronica,techno - the remix took on a life of it's own. I personally don't see the point of a remix unless the artist puts his/her personal stamp on it. I see where you're coming from..maybe it should be called rewrite as opposed to remix.

[kraze]

I would say that it actually hasn't got much to do with the works themselves, but the circumstances of how you started the song.

 

If the song came to you when you entered a mix competition or were given stems by a band to work with, then it's a remix.

 

If there's no comission at all involved and an average joe wouldn't understand the link between the two songs when A/B'd and you only made it out of inspiration of the track (or even if you used a sample from the record and manipulated it) then it's your own song.