TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- how can this be called remix?

how can this be called remix?

original:


"remix":


i don�t know the real meaning of the term remix...but i�ve heard too many remixes (in an edm way) and isn't suppose to change synths, beats and stuff?

and this daddy yankee guy just added fergie lyrics and he calls it remix

am i wrong?

how can this be called music?

quote:

Originally posted by nchs09 how can this be called music?

It's not called music. It's called reggaeton.

I just felt myself lose brain cells for watching these vids, thanks a lot

As a Daddy Yankee hater.

Who are you to define what a remix is? Tell me.

A "EDM style" remix is NOT the same as urban remixes.



The general definition of a remix is simply a different version of a song.

Covers are considered as remixes. (widely)

quote:

Originally posted by nchs09 how can this be called music?

quote:

Originally posted by Dj EntycE As a Daddy Yankee hater. Who are you to define what a remix is? Tell me. A "EDM style" remix is NOT the same as urban remixes. The general definition of a remix is simply a different version of a song. Covers are considered as remixes. (widely)

Haven't heard the videos but I find in general there are two kinds of remixes:
1. The shitty commercial remixes that sound like someone has just randomly put in annoying house/electro beats to a song+a couple of effects. Probably doesn't have the midi of the original either.
2. Decent professional remixes... that your not sure if this is version 2 of the track or a remix. It might change the genre of the song... it might extend it... it might shorten it... it might do all of the above. It might just be a general improvement. Doesn't need to be big. The whole point of this is if you haven't heard the original you might not be sure whether this is a remix or not because type 1 gives remixes a bad name. If you hear one of these and are like "wheres my out of place synth that makes song sound crap" and your like "wtf this ain't a remix" then shame on you. As I said I haven't heard the original video so this might be a null point but there are certainly people like that.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj EntycE Covers are considered as remixes. (widely)

No, covers are considered as covers. If they were considered remixes, they would be called remixes.

Of course it's a remix. Moreso than a lot of remixes. They took the original recorded elements of a song, then changed something, inherently requiring a that they remix the track. I know it sounds overly literal, but a remix is at its core nothing more than changing the order of, adding something to, or removing something from, an original mix. True, some have more creativity than others, but really the idea of a "remix" in itself already isn't a beacon of creativity.

Please do us all a favor and stop posting shitty regaetton videos here, ok? I already have to take enough of this shit wherever I go, clubs, bars, house parties, etc. for me to find it on TA also...

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Mystery No, covers are considered as covers. If they were considered remixes, they would be called remixes.

Yes, they are. It's not the primary word people in the real world use, but it's still the "technical" vocabulary.

And tell me how is your way of seeing thing supposed to be any considerable?

quote:

Originally posted by Dj EntycE Yes, they are. It's not the primary word people in the real world use, but it's still the "technical" vocabulary. And tell me how is your way of seeing thing supposed to be any considerable?

Because cover bands don't do any mixing.

There is still mixing involved in the recording. You just don't push record on a recorder and then put the recorded file on cd...

quote:

Originally posted by Dj EntycE There is still mixing involved in the recording. You just don't push record on a recorder and then put the recorded file on cd...

So that makes a 'cover' version a 'remix' ?

No.

A cover version is a version of someone else's song / track that retains all the original musical elements and arrangement.

A remix is where another producer has changed the musical elements / arrangement / tempo etc of the original version.

quote:

Originally posted by Wicked Neo So that makes a 'cover' version a 'remix' ? No. A cover version is a version of someone else's song / track that retains all the original musical elements and arrangement. A remix is where another producer has changed the musical elements / arrangement / tempo etc of the original version.

So why then are acoustic, chilled versions of hard rock songs (or vice versa) considered covers?

quote:

Originally posted by Dj EntycE There is still mixing involved in the recording. You just don't push record on a recorder and then put the recorded file on cd...

Mixing isn't remixing, those things have different meanings. Most of the time it's not the artist who does the mixdown anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by idoru So why then are acoustic, chilled versions of hard rock songs (or vice versa) considered covers?

Well now that's just silly. Unless all they are doing is changing the tempo and replaying the thing.

The reason for this discrepancy here is that in practice, remix is only ever applied to EDM, and cover is only ever applied to rock. Despite the fact that they refer to different methods, they've come to mean the same thing, just in different genres.

quote:

Originally posted by Wicked Neo So that makes a 'cover' version a 'remix' ? No. A cover version is a version of someone else's song / track that retains all the original musical elements and arrangement. A remix is where another producer has changed the musical elements / arrangement / tempo etc of the original version.

FIXED!!

quote:

Originally posted by thoughtlessjex The reason for this discrepancy here is that in practice, remix is only ever applied to EDM, and cover is only ever applied to rock. Despite the fact that they refer to different methods, they've come to mean the same thing, just in different genres.

Not true. Take "Your Loving Arms" for example. You have remixes:
Billie Ray Martin - Your Loving Arms (Brothers In Rhythm Remix)
...and you also have a cover:
Karen Overton - Your Loving Arms

Cover versions do exist in dance music. I'd say the main technical difference is that a cover version involves a re-performance, where as a remix merely involves additional mixing and production of someone else's performance. This is why it's rarer to see covers of instrumentals- there's little "performance" as such in either version.

A lot of the reasoning behind why something is labelled as a cover or a remix is about the money, credits and release of a track. Remixers often get paid only one fixed, upfront fee, where as the main artist gets royalties.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Not true. Take "Your Loving Arms" for example. You have remixes: Billie Ray Martin - Your Loving Arms (Brothers In Rhythm Remix) ...and you also have a cover: Karen Overton - Your Loving Arms Cover versions do exist in dance music. I'd say the main technical difference is that a cover version involves a re-performance, where as a remix merely involves additional mixing and production of someone else's performance. This is why it's rarer to see covers of instrumentals- there's little "performance" as such in either version.

Fair enough, there are still musicians and producers who maintain the technical distinction, and I'm not arguing with that definition. But like I said, that's not how it's used by the majority in practice.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Cover versions do exist in dance music.

sorry to get off topic but has anyone heard manson's cover of "personal jesus"

what an awful, awful "cover" just awful

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.