Hi there. Maybe someone already talked abut it, but my search had no results...
what's the difference between a mix and a remix?
In some releases there's the original version and the other versions are called sometimes mix and sometimes remix. Does anybody know why?
thank you in advance
___________________
" Like flowers that move in the air... don't bother no don't care... "
Feb-09-2009 12:23
Prototrance
AKA Narel & Suffuse
Registered: Mar 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Been discussed on here before. Many arguments, like usual.
Simple answer, there is no difference if it relates to a mix or remix done by another artist other than the original producer. Its just their choice what to call it. Typically I find 'mix' is used instead of remix if that remix has been given an extended title. i.e. Ferry corstens blah blah mix
A 'mix' on its own can relate to different arrangements of a track done by the original producer. I.E. Trance artist - Trance tune (original mix). Trance artist - Trance tune (club mix)
But...... the original artist may 'remix' their own tune if it involves more than a simple tweak of the arrangement as discussed above. I.E. Trance artist - Trance tune (Progressive remix).
But someone will be along soon to tell me I'm wrong. Probably Mr Mystery, who will use some derogatory comment. Grim reaper who will be right and not insult me or System-J who will use big words.
Feb-09-2009 13:51
kitphillips
is actually a guy.
Registered: May 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
To me, theres an original set of mixes done, and then anything subsequent to that is a remix. Whether it be done by the original artist or otherwise.
But I think they usually go with whatever sounds better, and theres no real difference.
I think that a "mix" constitutes a slight or small (re-)arrangement of the track usually done by the original artist, whereas a re-mix usually refers to bigger re-arrangements usually made by different artists (but can also be performed by original artist if the changes are substantial and made on a different date/time than the original release date). I think that what it matters most though is the degree of change, not the person (original or other artist) doing it and because "the degree of change" is relative for any person (including artists themselves!), you get the variability in what something constitutes a "mix" or a "remix".
Feb-09-2009 14:05
Mr.Mystery
Static Guru
Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Vantaa
quote:
Originally posted by PETRAN
I think that a "mix" constitutes a slight or small (re-)arrangement of the track usually done by the original artist, whereas a re-mix usually refers to bigger re-arrangements usually made by different artists (but can also be performed by original artist if the changes are substantial and made on a different date/time than the original release date). I think that what it matters most though is the degree of change, not the person (original or other artist) doing it and because "the degree of change" is relative for any person (including artists themselves!), you get the variability in what something constitutes a "mix" or a "remix".
The only difference is the spelling. Really. The two terms are interchangable and which is used is down entirely to the personal preference of the artist in question.
Originally posted by kitphillips
To me, theres an original set of mixes done, and then anything subsequent to that is a remix. Whether it be done by the original artist or otherwise.
But I think they usually go with whatever sounds better, and theres no real difference.
Safest bet as far as I'm concerned, though Protrance makes some good points (such as using "Mix" within a very long name).
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Levels is...decent...damn better than a lot of the shite dominating the charts at the moment. It sounds absolutely nothing like...a billion and one similar tracks in this big-room style. I always had a soft spot.
Feb-09-2009 17:48
adi_hanson
feels a newbie.
Registered: Dec 2007
Location: Blackburn
Just take the term as interchangable.
Tiesto - 10 seconds before sunrise(original mix)
Tiesto - 10 seconds before sunrise (tiesto's my god is it morning already remix)
Tiesto - 10 seconds before sunrise (yoji biomehanika's mentalist mix)
Tiesto - 10 seconds before sunrise (Dj joe bloggs remix)
Nah, I would think that "remix" at least implies the existence of an original/different mix. Everything else is up to the artist himself/herself/itself.
___________________
Signature Suspended because I don't like you
Feb-09-2009 20:14
Trance-M
Since 1994 tranceaddict
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: Limburg, Netherlands
Wenn I just look at these two releases of my friend Lisaya (Soulcry) it is very clear:
The ones Lisaya made are called mix and the versions others made are called remix.
Dying To Live (Radio Mix)
Dying To Live (Extended Mix)
Dying To Live (Alternative Radio Mix)
Dying To Live (Alternative Mix)
Dying To Live (DJ Sakin vs. Wittendoerfer Remix Edit)
Dying To Live (DJ Sakin vs. Wittendoerfer Remix)
Dying To Live (Re-flected Remix Edit)
Dying To Live (Re-flected Remix)
Dying To Live (Acoustic Version)
And it is also a remix when Lisaya makes it for someone else like:
I happen to know Re-flected are some guys of Groningen (NL) who did these remixes. Sorry for the spam...
___________________
Longest (classic) Trance playlist on YouTube (5000 tracks released up to and including 1997), click here
Feb-09-2009 20:46
SYSTEM-J
IDKFA.
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: Manchester
quote:
Originally posted by creon444
Nah, I would think that "remix" at least implies the existence of an original/different mix. Everything else is up to the artist himself/herself/itself.
I've even seen original versions entitled "Original Remix" and I've seen remixes of tracks with no original, only different Mixes. I would agree though, that "Remix" generally implies a different version from the original, where as Mix just implies a version.
