The Best Remixes

I'm to this thread late, but I want to throw my hat into the mashup/remix ring and agree with Kosmo.

mashups are not remixes. its hurtful to my brain to think they may have ever passed as remixes ….to anyone, ever.

it would be like if i took a famous painting and and made everything a different color on it.  wow, look how creative i am!

now, can we get back to posting some good remixes?

callat703 wrote:

I guess my point is that the distinctions are nuanced; essentially, a mashup is just a more specialized form of remix, involving an additional song brought into the picture.

have you ever tried doing either? try both and come back and say its a "nuance".

back wrote:

callat703 wrote:

I guess my point is that the distinctions are nuanced; essentially, a mashup is just a more specialized form of remix, involving an additional song brought into the picture.

have you ever tried doing either? try both and come back and say its a "nuance".

I have tried both, before I posted anything here to begin with.  The distinctions are nuanced.

callat703 wrote:

back wrote:

callat703 wrote:

I guess my point is that the distinctions are nuanced; essentially, a mashup is just a more specialized form of remix, involving an additional song brought into the picture.

have you ever tried doing either? try both and come back and say its a "nuance".

I have tried both, before I posted anything here to begin with.  The distinctions are nuanced.

you must make a crappy remix or one hell of a mashup.

  I may not take one thing you say here seriously ever again….

ixkpd-bk wrote:
I've found that I'm generally a HUGE fan of Jacques Lu Cont/Thin White Duke/Stuart Price remixes. Ditto this for Beyond the Wizard's Sleeve. BTWS's remixes of Midlake's "Roscoe" and Goldfrapp's "Happiness" are pretty fucking phenomenal and turn already great songs into phenomenal tracks.

dont just talk about it!!!

Midlake - Roscoe (Beyond The Wizard's Sleeve Remix)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEIVTS9Lvso

Remixes have always seemed like a cash grab to me. I don't think I've ever heard a remix that improved on the original, and most are much worse than the original.

back wrote:

callat703 wrote:

back wrote:

callat703 wrote:

I guess my point is that the distinctions are nuanced; essentially, a mashup is just a more specialized form of remix, involving an additional song brought into the picture.

have you ever tried doing either? try both and come back and say its a "nuance".

I have tried both, before I posted anything here to begin with.  The distinctions are nuanced.

you must make a crappy remix or one hell of a mashup.

  I may not take one thing you say here seriously ever again….

I don't really care if you do or don't - but I'm fairly sure you can buy one more of my remixes in stores than yours. 

I'll concede that my original phrasing about a demonstrable difference between mashups and remixes was poor - but I won't concede that ultimately, the differences between the two are nuanced.  Are there differences?  Yes.  But if you were to explain the two to a casual music fan or somebody who didn't know what either of them were, you'd hit on many of the same points in your explanations.  Both are ultimately a way of representing a song in a different form than it was originally presented, with an end goal of creating something new and different that can stand alone.

Can mashups be created on the fly?  I'm sure they can with the right equipment.  Can remixes?  Probably also true.  Can both be created in a studio and be way more complicated than that?  Absolutely.

How would you explain the Grey Album, Girl Talk, or that godawful Linkin Park/Jay-Z project?  Mashups, or remixes?  I think either distinction on its own is inadequate.

Oh, and for the record:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashup_(music)

Mashups are known by a number of different names:

    * Bootlegs (mostly in Europe)
    * Boots (but not Booty which is a branch of Electro)
    * Mash-ups
    * Smashups (or Smash-Ups)
    * Bastard pop (as in the combined songs are unofficial)
    * Blends
    * Cutups (or cut ups, a term originally coined by William S. Burroughs to describe some of his literary experiments that involved literally "cutting up" different texts and rearranging the pieces to create a new piece.)
    * Powermixing (Usually the pace has to be sped up to allow for more song to be played and thus cannot play any single blend for the full length of the song)

In addition, more traditional terms such as "edits" or (unauthorized) "remixes" are favored by many "bootleggers" (also known as 'leggers).

Charlie wrote:
Remixes have always seemed like a cash grab to me. I don't think I've ever heard a remix that improved on the original, and most are much worse than the original.

its true, especially if you dont like dance music, since more than 50% of remixes are dance oriented, or maybe hip-hop.  if a rock band plays another rock bands song, i think they just call that a cover version (though a cover song is closer to a remix than a fucking mashup).

  Rabbit in the Moon were probably my favourite remixers, although sometimes you would remix a song so well, it was almost just considered your own song, with a certain sample in it.

  like this Tori Amos song….http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNJqrBLhFKk

while others they did were more straight remixes, the this Sarah McLachlan song  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9atfn0hLj0

callat703 wrote:

back wrote:

callat703 wrote:

back wrote:

callat703 wrote:

I guess my point is that the distinctions are nuanced; essentially, a mashup is just a more specialized form of remix, involving an additional song brought into the picture.

have you ever tried doing either? try both and come back and say its a "nuance".

I have tried both, before I posted anything here to begin with.  The distinctions are nuanced.

you must make a crappy remix or one hell of a mashup.

  I may not take one thing you say here seriously ever again….

I don't really care if you do or don't - but I'm fairly sure you can buy one more of my remixes in stores than yours. 

I'll concede that my original phrasing about a demonstrable difference between mashups and remixes was poor - but I won't concede that ultimately, the differences between the two are nuanced.  Are there differences?  Yes.  But if you were to explain the two to a casual music fan or somebody who didn't know what either of them were, you'd hit on many of the same points in your explanations.  Both are ultimately a way of representing a song in a different form than it was originally presented, with an end goal of creating something new and different that can stand alone.

Can mashups be created on the fly?  I'm sure they can with the right equipment.  Can remixes?  Probably also true.  Can both be created in a studio and be way more complicated than that?  Absolutely.

How would you explain the Grey Album, Girl Talk, or that godawful Linkin Park/Jay-Z project?  Mashups, or remixes?  I think either distinction on its own is inadequate.

Oh, and for the record:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashup_(music)

Mashups are known by a number of different names:

    * Bootlegs (mostly in Europe)
    * Boots (but not Booty which is a branch of Electro)
    * Mash-ups
    * Smashups (or Smash-Ups)
    * Bastard pop (as in the combined songs are unofficial)
    * Blends
    * Cutups (or cut ups, a term originally coined by William S. Burroughs to describe some of his literary experiments that involved literally "cutting up" different texts and rearranging the pieces to create a new piece.)
    * Powermixing (Usually the pace has to be sped up to allow for more song to be played and thus cannot play any single blend for the full length of the song)

In addition, more traditional terms such as "edits" or (unauthorized) "remixes" are favored by many "bootleggers" (also known as 'leggers).

  since when is wikipedia, "for the record"???  this article was clearly written by someone as stupid as you. and it barely even mentions "remixes" until the end, where it seems to generify them into one lump category by people like you who dont really understand.

  Where are these remixes that you can by at the store…i'd love to hear them! surely they're all over the net too! link em up. 

  remixes and mashups have many small similarities but the differences lie in the basic form of creation and you jsut cant ignore that….however, clearly your knowledge in this field is limited, since you started a remix thread with links to a bunch of mashups! 

 

callat703 wrote:
Can mashups be created on the fly?  I'm sure they can with the right equipment.  Can remixes?  Probably also true.  Can both be created in a studio and be way more complicated than that?  Absolutely.

How would you explain the Grey Album, Girl Talk, or that godawful Linkin Park/Jay-Z project?  Mashups, or remixes?  I think either distinction on its own is inadequate.

The Grey album is a mashup album.  I dont know Girl Talk but I thought he was a mashup dude too. 

  Look, just because somewhere down the line, people have "greyed" the line between mashup and remix doesnt give anyone the right to perpetuate that line of thinking. 

  Sorry, but i get upset and I am a bit classic with my mixing of music.  I was even irate when the records DJs started using were complex enough that all they had to do was beat match records all night. 

back wrote:
  since when is wikipedia, "for the record"???  this article was clearly written by someone as stupid as you. and it barely even mentions "remixes" until the end, where it seems to generify them into one lump category by people like you who dont really understand.

   Where are these remixes that you can by at the store…i'd love to hear them! surely they're all over the net too! link em up. 

   remixes and mashups have many small similarities but the differences lie in the basic form of creation and you jsut cant ignore that….however, clearly your knowledge in this field is limited, since you started a remix thread with links to a bunch of mashups!    

Well, "for the record" means just that.  You can cite anything for the record.  My point was that I'm not the only person that categorizes as such.  There is a difference between being ignorant and you and I disagreeing.  I'm not ignorant - we disagree.

I'm not posting here to have my own music judged; I was meeting your snark with my own.  If you'd like, PM me and I'll send you a link.

Explain to me the "basic form of creation" that is fundamentally different between a studio created remix and studio created mashup, if you will?  The fact that it is two or more songs instead of one?  Beyond that, isn't the basic form of creation the manipulation of samples to create a new product?

back wrote:

callat703 wrote:
Can mashups be created on the fly?  I'm sure they can with the right equipment.  Can remixes?  Probably also true.  Can both be created in a studio and be way more complicated than that?  Absolutely.

How would you explain the Grey Album, Girl Talk, or that godawful Linkin Park/Jay-Z project?  Mashups, or remixes?  I think either distinction on its own is inadequate.

 
  Look, just because somewhere down the line, people have "greyed" the line between mashup and remix doesnt give anyone the right to perpetuate that line of thinking. 

No - it does EXACTLY that.  Music isn't static - it changes, as do the ways in which we refer to and think about music.

So is the Sugababes' "Freak Like Me" mix, with the Gary Numan "Are Friends Electric" synths added, a remix or a mash-up? Seems like its a little of both. Because it's awesome.

I think my favorite-ever mashup is Evolution Control Committee's blend of Herb Alpert and Public Enemy, "Rebel Without a Pause."

Favorite remixes… hard to say, as remixes constitute a signficant portion of what I play.  Several years ago, Kid Loco did an absolutely exquisite remix of Talvin Singh's "Traveller."  That remix and others by Kid Loco appeared on the compilation "Jesus Life for Children Under 12 Inches":

http://www.discogs.com/Kid-Loco-Jesus-Life-For-Children-Under-12-Inches/release/2397

(It also had a domestic release, although discogs.com doesn't list it.)

callat703 wrote:

Explain to me the "basic form of creation" that is fundamentally different between a studio created remix and studio created mashup, if you will?  The fact that it is two or more songs instead of one?  Beyond that, isn't the basic form of creation the manipulation of samples to create a new product?

you know the difference. at least i hope.  in a remix one will generally create a new song using their own created material spliced with parts of the original work. mashups, you're just putting 2 already completed works together, not putting anything unique into it.

lets put it this way, putting two things together to make something else, doesnt constitute "creation" in my mind.

 I will give you this, many remixers out these days are not doing anything more complex than a mashup. i.e. when Paul Oakenfold put a psy-trance beat over any rock song and calls it a remix.  

 seems like with all of the computer programs available to everyone these days, people would come up with something better than that.  seriously.


oh and pm me a link…..

back wrote:

callat703 wrote:

Explain to me the "basic form of creation" that is fundamentally different between a studio created remix and studio created mashup, if you will?  The fact that it is two or more songs instead of one?  Beyond that, isn't the basic form of creation the manipulation of samples to create a new product?

you know the difference. at least i hope.  in a remix one will generally create a new song using their own created material spliced with parts of the original work. mashups, you're just putting 2 already completed works together, not putting anything unique into it.

lets put it this way, putting two things together to make something else, doesnt constitute "creation" in my mind.

I think that's oversimplifying what people have done with mashups; I also don't feel like it gives enough credit to the people who do make very complicated pieces of art with other art. 

Do you feel the same way about mixed media fine art or collage?

And I will send you a link.

callat703 wrote:

Do you feel the same way about mixed media fine art or collage?

And I will send you a link.

we should probably start another thread for that, but no, i dont even think those are comparable to mashup.  (although i suppose if we were talking to someone who knew nothing, we could again assume they were!)

  why are you homogenizing the world so much?

back wrote:

callat703 wrote:

Do you feel the same way about mixed media fine art or collage?

And I will send you a link.

we should probably start another thread for that, but no, i dont even think those are comparable to mashup.  (although i suppose if we were talking to someone who knew nothing, we could again assume they were!)

  why are you homogenizing the world so much?

We can hijack my own thread, its fine :)

But…why aren't they comparable?  Aren't they all essentially using other art to create new art?

callat703 wrote:

But…why aren't they comparable?  Aren't they all essentially using other art to create new art?

  see what i am saying, we could go on forever until everything on earth was essentially the same. i dont subscribe to the school of just because things share a few similarities means that they can be compared as overall similar things.

back wrote:

Charlie wrote:
Remixes have always seemed like a cash grab to me. I don't think I've ever heard a remix that improved on the original, and most are much worse than the original.

its true, especially if you dont like dance music, since more than 50% of remixes are dance oriented, or maybe hip-hop.  if a rock band plays another rock bands song, i think they just call that a cover version (though a cover song is closer to a remix than a fucking mashup).

A remix is just that, re-mixed, a totally different version/feel to the song. Covers are usually just a duplicate of the original, sometimes with a little flavor of their own, but still, not a remix. :)