Remixes in general : C/D?

Even if you convince a good chunk of AFX fans to help run up singles sales for the Lemonheads this one time, how is this an effective means of publicity?

And in the more justifiable case: "hey, I like this guy's work. He's gonna remix us. F' off." Is it often a good idea to tell the entire world that you like this one particular artist in this fashion?

(Again, I'd personally refute myself and am asking these questions rhetorically. More interested in what you guys have to say, tho)

additionally, i'll buy most anything remixed by Francois K, Theo Parrish, or I Sound. DFA are getting very good, too...

Beck's remix of Bjork's "Alarm Call"
Talvin Singh's remix of Madonna's "Nothing Really Matters"
Omni Trio's remix of Medeski Martin and Wood's "Bubblehouse"
Roni Size's remix of that Sarah McLaughlin song.

Remixes can bring out different elements in a song, that may have seemed not important or "background", and in some cases can take a simple (maybe even "bland") piece and turn it into something wholly original and thought provoking; in a way that someone who might not have previously been interested in a group/artist might see something they like in the remix. Fr'instance, from that Talvin Singh/Madonna remix I mentioned, I backtracked to find Madonna's OG version and thought "wow, this is so different from Talvin's interpretation" and that context helped me more fully appreciate Madonna's OG version than I would having just come across it on the radio.

Is that better?

VERY interesting, of course! But I think better suited for a different thread.

Kylie is now the remix pin-up girl. There must be more remixes of the last 3 singles than there are tracks on the album they came from. why? to sell more singles?

if somone buys both Single CD1 & CD2 of say, Come into my World, does that inflate the ranking in the charts more than one single?

Has never happened.

Remixes are the first step in closing the almighty gap between listener and artist. The remixers, without probably realising, got rid of the idea of the "track" as the ultimate finished version of the work. This idea of the finished perfect work or "the song", when you think about it for a bit, is ludicrous and insane. It defers refining and occludes any further variation or improvement. 50 years of pop culture ain't telling me other than this fascistic view of art, which is, to my mind, a cancer and a bastard cancer at that.

And it's not really the fault of the remixers (mostly) or the artists (mostly), but just the way the creative process has developed. Now that computers have made the playing field more common amongst all types of musicians, artists rarely need to specially commission anyone to reinterpret a song for a different scene such as clubs.. they can just do it themselves, by throwing it in as a set of bells, whistles, the kitchen sink, and some 'dope' plug-in in the software they use to record. More rock bands are exploring dance music elements on their records (at the same quality ratio as always.. 90% bad, 10% good), because now it's easy.

Of course, having remixers on your releases is still very common -- in fact, more common than ever before. But the whole presentation of releasing remixes of one's songs these days feels more like windows into industry afterparties, but using extraneous over-padded CD singles instead of actual h'or deuvre plates. The remixes don't really serve a purpose other than to get the fans of both parties to notice the other.. or just to show off that the artist and remixer are friends. Like "Hey, I can help out, I'll rent out some space on my next single for ya, buddy"

Also, the age of reinterpretation and nostalgia is still peaking and climbing. Every record is some permutation of previous bands, moreso than ever before. Music fans are getting more excited about new reissues than actual new bands. With all this looking back and redoing, remixes just seem like more noise in the same paradigm.

Commissioned remixes are less and less respecting the song they're remixing.. which is fine if the original song is ass. But even earnest efforts to remix a song often too easily throw away the good parts of the original song (if it exists) as well as the less good. Remixes are now either full blown covers or full blown originals with some micro sample of the source song to qualify itself.

Now, there's nothing wrong with all of the above. And some people like these dynamics. But I've grown extemely tired of it.

This doesn't count tribute albums nor unauthorized remixing. I think those are different issues, and would love to discuss those as well.

Now to tackle Dan's point... well, it's a double standard, isn't it? Electronic covers of non-electronic songs can qualify as remixes, yet non-electronic covers of electronic songs are covers -- no ands, ifs, and buts. This is more testament to how horribly mangled the definition of the "remix" has become.

Geir: I've heard several remixes that have enhanced the melody of the original song.

Man: I actually disagree. I think I prefer that remixes not be named after the remixer. Mainly because, IMHO, the art of the remix died when remixers decided they were stars as well.

However, some remix projects do very well to translate the souls of the original pieces into fresh interpretations; I generally find that these remixes occur when the artist and the remixer are fans of each others work AND respect what each other do AND go into the project with ONLY the intent to re-interpret a piece rather than to clubify a track. A good example (IMHO) is on the Medeski Martin and Wood Combustication remix EP; the DJ Logic remix of "Dracula" both retains important elements of the original as well as expands on underlying themes and bringing them more into the open, rather than taking a hook and simply adding a bunch of, as said above, "bells and whistles"...which in the cases of some remixes, is quite literal.

I still stand by the remix-as-a-form-of-interpretation just as much as the cover-as-a-form-of-interpretation; as long as the remixer is using their powers for good rather than evil.

Actually, I disagree.. Part of my point above, which I didn't make very clear I admit, was that I feel there is too much unique cameo-ing on singles happening, as opposed to more anonymous market-oriented remixing. And I think the more unique remixes that are prevalent are starting to suffer a lower signal-to-noise ratio than even the straightfwd club remixes have in the past and present.

And I wish I could understand why I feel this way. Is it because many of the unique remixes are done by folks who simply never had the time and experience to hone their craft ("Hey, this hot new IDM guy is getting a buzz. Hire that dude to remix us quick!")? Or they get paid less than more tried-and-true market-oriented remixers (like the modern day version of Shep Pettibone, Arthur Baker, Chip Nunez, or what have you), therefore they don't harness their creative energy as well in this context? Or they don't care to, because they're making quicker-albeit less cash from the deal?

Side question: is there a modern day Shep Pettibone or John St. James or Arthur Baker around anymore?

OF COURSE, yes, there will be worthwhile exceptions, Nick and Stevem. I completely agree. I can name several myself. I'm just talking in general here.

Pretty basic question, but, what exactly is the difference between a remix and a dub? Obvious answer I'd imagine, but I really have no idea.

dub = mostly vocalless + crazy FX

Also a genuine dub should be recorded "live" at the mixing desk.