Call me old-fashioned, but this trend of random people remixing famous, fantastic songs into new renditions didn't exist when I was growing up. Or at least you never heard such things on the radio. But yesterday when the radio played a remixed version of Blondie's Heart of Glass, it put me in a philosophical mood.

I understand we live in a culturejamming, postmodern era and the artist's original work is no longer sacrosanct.

But musically, what is its purpose and benefit? Is it fun? Is it tasteless? Is it superfluous? Does it re-energize forgotten gems of the pop musical canon?

What do YOU think?

when i hear stuff like frank sinatra or nina simone remixed to sound "current", it makes my teeth hurt. i can see rock music getting the remix treatment - at worst, it's just going to sound dumb - but there's just some classic music you don't mess with. the vintage of the sound is part of what needs to be appreciated. if you want to make it "current", re-record it altogether. don't whore out classic performances to make them sound more like a new madonna single. gross.

Even awful remixes make an awful lot of sense when you're on the dancefloor and in the moment.

More of a 90s thing.

Cinnie said:

Cinnie said:

That's the purpose to me. Listening to dance remixes on the radio isn't exactly right. Sometimes when you're in a club on the floor and the DJ slips in a classic song that's altered a little to match the environment, it can be perfect.

But so...regarding radio play...isn't there a copyright issue?

heartbeatocean said:

Writing credit generally doesn't change for a song just because it has been remixed.. unless it has been renamed and made into a new composition.

heartbeatocean said:

Are you saying the remix was without the artist's consent? I don't think there's anything wrong with that if the remix is only for the station to play and not going to be sold anywhere. Shep Pettibone used to remix a lot of records in house for Kiss FM back in the early 80s and those weren't authorized, right?

sextonseven said:

The royalties still go to the original writers.

There are so many different kinds of re-mixes....

There are just the old-fashioned club versions,extended 12"records, which were the rage when there was vinyl, but no really dont exist the way they did, at least quality wise.

Then theres the whole hip-hop mix, that was a 90's thing and that is well overplayed and needs to be retired.

Than of course there would be just a dj taking a classic and slapping a beat on it, that would be typical for Elvis Presley, frank sinatra etc.. after death mixes.

I think personally at this point the quality of the re-mixers sucks, there are some good ones but most suck, not really suck, but they are stuck in this "ibiza" groove.

Cinnie said:

No doubt. Is that what heartbeatocean meant though? That because it's a remix, the artist might not get paid for the spin?

In other eras many artists who STOLE songs(and sounds), called them their own instead of the covers they were.

There were people who had careers devoted to covers, but were never seen as the pro-remixers(and lame ones)or pro-song vultures that they were.

You also had a ton of actual musicians alive and kicking back then making original music. They wanted to best people or at least measure up, but with the exception of a few people they didn't want to rob others and put their own spin on their stuff.

I think there are some songs though, so painfully boring or devoid of soul, that the right artist(a legit artist not a DJ or shit hopper)could breathe life into them, but a lot of that stopped happening a while ago. Everyone can appreciate someone taking a lame or buried song heard by like two people and singing/playing it in a way that makes it classic.

And original artists don't always get paid off covers and remixes.

There are some people getting completely screwed behind that stuff and just the distribution of their stuff period.
[Edited 5/9/08 15:20pm]

sextonseven said:

I see, so it's taking a song someone loves and making it danceable, even if the original didn't lend itself to the dance floor. And maybe extends it to make it even more danceable?

sextonseven said:

Okay, this is a serious question. I wasn't thinking so much in terms of who gets paid, because I assumed the artist doesn't get paid, but is it right to take an artistic work and "muck it up" (not to sound too judgmental or anything) with a bunch of other stuff without their consent? I mean there was a reason the song was written the way it was right? Or is there this special "remixing territory" now with popular music that makes it universally accepted?

I mean, would somebody lift someone's painting off the wall, color xerox it, paint around it, put it up on the internet, etc? It feels somewhat like a violation, and illegal to boot.

I work in film and this is a highly contested subject. There are found footage filmmakers who use the "fair use clause" which means you can lift other people's work and put it into your own, with your name on it, only if it is under a certain amount of seconds OR used for commentary, satire, or parody.

I can understand mixing these things up on the fly at the club. That seems fun and creative. But playing them on the radio? Have any artists ever objected to mixes of their work or is the pop music culture such that that would be in poor taste, turn off fans, etc...so they just have to accept it. I know some artists embrace these things on certain levels. But the whole issue perplexes me.

Cinnie said:

Your telling me the original writers/recording studio etc. get paid every time someone does a remix with their material?

sextonseven said:

But doesn't the radio station benefit? I can see it if it's a college/non-profit/pirate radio station, but popular corporate stations?

I like mash-ups and some remixes

heartbeatocean said:

No, that's just the excuse lame DJs have come up with to explain why they decide to leech someone's work instead of coming up with their own stuff.

Dance said:

I never thought about this in terms of covers. Do artists need to get permission to record and sell covers of other people's songs? I'm so clueless. Yeah, I can see how it's a fine line between really bringing something new to the song, enlivening, developing it in a new artistic direction...or being lazy. Seems it'd be a lot easier to take something already written and recycle it, rather than actually write something original.

Am I being too harsh?

heartbeatocean said:

People love shit hop and other cheap nonmusic.

thekidsgirl said:

I don't know. A long time ago, I started a thread about mash-ups. People linked to all kinds of mash-ups. It was an interesting concept for about a second.

Although, I LOVED the Madonna Music/Disco Inferno mash-up she did on her tour. I guess it's a matter of doing it well and in context. I mean, she was the artist doing it, which was interesting, and it was presented with a lot of visual reference to Saturday Night Fever, and it really rocked.

Dance said:

yeah, I guess it's part of the youtube culture where everything gets revamped a million times often by mediocre (and that's an understatement!) producers and then gets presented to the public in numerous forms.

What is this culture coming to? Are we no longer able to discriminate between good and bad art? Were we ever able to? Personally, I think it represents an artistic crisis.

heartbeatocean said:

If the original artist agreed to the remix, I don't see the problem. I've heard authorized dance remixes of Jefferson Airplane's "Somebody To Love" and Fleetwood Mac's "Dreams" that I thought would sound okay in a club.

sextonseven said:

I'm just in a curmudgeonly mood. I feel like I'm 80 years old today.

heartbeatocean said:

The station benefits in that they have an exclusive mix that might draw people to their station as opposed to listening to the original song on another station. But the artist still gets paid for the spin. I'm not talking about remixes that are too radical though.

sextonseven said:

Oh, well, that's something, I guess.

heartbeatocean said:

So what do you think of this?

http://www.amazon.com/Com...217&sr=1-2

heartbeatocean said:

I don't think there's a fine line.

There are those who make a song something different, who literally dig up a song or take a song off a popular album that people were never fond of, and make it a classic. These people are so good that they drive the original artist to only play that interpretation.

Then there are those who do club mixes and shit hop...

You're not too harsh.