What constitutes a good remix? - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- What constitutes a good remix?

Posted by Mattsanity on Jul-21-2014 00:59:

What constitutes a good remix?

There's remixes that stay true to the original mix and that obviously shows faithfulness on the remixer's part. It has its pros but it could show a lack of originality, ironically. Then there's remixes that sound nothing like the original and yet, people dislike it because it has nothing in common with the original. I actually prefer the latter though because it shows that the producer/remixer was thinking outside the box for better or for worse, but usually it was for the better imo. For example, I think Luke Chable's remix of Union Jack - Two Full Moons And A Trout was well done. it has a nice trippy buildup, but people consider it one of the worst remixes of the track. oh well.

Posted by Paradox Lost on Jul-21-2014 01:24:

Breeder's YouTube Page

I like remixes that essentially interpret the 'spirit' of the original from a different musical perspective; a different view of the same landscape. I don't mean to bloat the thread with YouTube vids, but a recent example that immediately comes to mind is Rob Garza's remix of Tycho's 'Ascension:'

Posted by SYSTEM-J on Jul-21-2014 12:11:

The only real requirement is to end up with a good piece of music that isn't a complete retread of the original. On some tenuous remixes you might wonder what association it has at all with the original, but if it's a good track, who cares?

Posted by rubez on Jul-21-2014 16:33:

if the production stands alone, then the fact it is a remix isn't important.

for remixes, in my mind all the credit goes to the remixer - and not the original artist. the remixer needs to own it... no matter how recognisable or wildly interpreted it turns out.

Posted by corjay9 on Jul-22-2014 04:04:

Its a good remix if DJ Koze produced it.

Posted by kosmotika on Jul-23-2014 01:02:

It should always be recognizable to the listener that it's a remix of the original track as opposed to thinking it's a completely different song altogether. I also really despise "remixes" which are pretty much a carbon copy of the original.
I hate to shamelessly plug here, but check my remix of Taucher's track "Pictures Of A Gallery"
It retains the overall feeling of the original track but also adds my personal style to the song and a few new elements.

Posted by Mattsanity on Jul-24-2014 04:49:

A lot of good points in this thread. It really shouldn't matter how random the remix is as long as it's a good piece. It should also be respected as a production as well

As a teen, I thought sander kleinenberg's remix of system f - exhale was terrible compared to the original. It has fuck all to do with the original, but now as I'm older, I've realized how sick sander's remix really is.

Posted by Paradox Lost on Jul-24-2014 04:59:

I agree that ultimately the only criteria is that it just be a good piece of stand-alone music; there's plenty of material I enjoyed without even knowing it was a remix of something else. But I also think we can demand more if we're making a point to look at it through the perspective of a remix, and assigning some special significance to its relationship to the original (which we don't necessarily have to do).