Lately, I've been noticing a 'trend'. I'm going to use "Sebastien Leger - The People - Original Mix" as the example (purely because it's among the most recent tunes I've heard that follow this trend.

Wtf. This track is simply a remix (albeit electronic) of Marilyn Manson - The Beautiful People.

Why is there no mention of Marilyn Manson in the the title of the track? It uses vocal samples, and is heavily structured on the MM song, but there's no reference to it whatsoever?

And, it's hardly the first.

I'm well aware that electronic music has always been about using and re-using other people's work, but it seemed like there was at least some recognition shown for the original track (ie. if you want to remix a track, but don't have permission to, it would still be called [artist name] - [track name] - [MY remix]). Even if it was a white label release, there was some respect in there.

So what the fuck is going on now? Is it just a weird licensing thing? Or just wankers passing themselves off as doing something 'original'? Can someone explain this to me?

Edit: In case I didn't make it clear, this thread is not specifically about Sebastien Leger's track, but 'artists' that follow this trend

___________________

Last edited by Sushipunk on Feb-16-2009 at 08:45

this isnt really a new phenomenon. there have always been many ways to credit artists. the definition of 'remix' itself has so many meanings, as does 'edit', and especially 'dub' (which probably started all this nonsense )

if its legal there is usually a note on the liner/cover/record

if its not legal then who cares? lol

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec this isnt really a new phenomenon. there have always been many ways to credit artists. the definition of 'remix' itself has so many meanings, as does 'edit', and especially 'dub' (which probably started all this nonsense ) if its legal there is usually a note on the liner/cover/record

I know it's not a new thing, but I find it generally offensive, and it seems to be happening more and more often now.

I guess I feel that in times past (10+ years ago lol) there was a little more respect in the industry. Now, it seems to be "no no, it's MEEEEE that's original even if I remixed an old track"

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec if its not legal then who cares? lol

I care. I think that people (in this case, producers) should be given recognition for what they've done/created. I think that most white label releases that are out there at least give [title][songname][this-is-a-remix] credit? About 100 people will jump in and prove me wrong, I'm sure

You're passionate about music - don't you care, even a little? No contempt for this practice at all?

___________________

does Marilyn Manson himself actually care about Sebastian Leger?

quote:

Originally posted by TranceOwnsLol does Marilyn Manson himself actually care about Sebastian Leger?

You're missing the point.

___________________

Back in the fifties and sixties it was common practice to cover other people's songs. Why is it such a big deal nowadays?

___________________
Latest releases:
Endless Cycles [Capital Heaven]
The Charlatan [Morphosis]

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Mystery Back in the fifties and sixties it was common practice to cover other people's songs. Why is it such a big deal nowadays?

Yeah, good point. I guess I have to give you that one.

So am I making a big deal about nothing then? For some reason it just shits me. Some remixers have the courtesy to name the track/artist that they've messed with, and others consider it to be their remix to be their own original work, despite it's origins?

Maybe my issue is with morals then

___________________

essentially what it boils down to is, if mm is credited and it can be just a simple "written by: brian warner/marilyn manson" and if manson cleared it this is issue is none.

___________________
facebook | blog | scrobbler | setarchive | 20160316
"I believe that's referred to as intelligent drum & bass, which obviously means there's a genre of stupid drum & bass out there" (John Peel)

God, your life must be extremely interesting if shit like that really bothers you..

are you sure the tracks in question actually sample the original ones? cuz if they don't, they couldn't really call it original artist - track name (some other guy remix). it could be that they've re-recorded the vocal parts or whatever they're basing their "remix" on. and this could for example be because the original artist has refused the remixes from being released or just does not want to have stuff released as original artist name - track name (some other guy remix).

for example if i'd like to make a remix of britney spears - womanizer and release it commercially, but britney and/or her producers wouldn't allow it, i couldn't call the track "britney spears - womanizer (skip remix)". i could have some session musicians re-record the stuff i want to sample and make them as close to the original as possible or then just release it as a white label (illegally) and name it however i want (could name it in which ever way i want as it'd be illegal anyway)…

it could also very well be that marilyn manson doesn't want to have a remix of an old tune of his released under his own name, but could still allow leger to use the samples. who knows.

___________________

Get Dropbox, with 250 MB extra space!

quote:

Originally posted by montana essentially what it boils down to is, if mm is credited and it can be just a simple "written by: brian warner/marilyn manson" and if manson cleared it this is issue is none.

You're right, as long as credit has been given somewhere, and been paid for/approved, it's not a huge deal. But, why not just have it titled as normal though? In this case: Marilyn Manson - The Beautiful People (Sebastien Leger remix)

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by skip are you sure the tracks in question actually sample the original ones? cuz if they don't, they couldn't really call it original artist - track name (some other guy remix). it could be that they've re-recorded the vocal parts or whatever they're basing their "remix" on. and this could for example be because the original artist has refused the remixes from being released or just does not want to have stuff released as original artist name - track name (some other guy remix). for example if i'd like to make a remix of britney spears - womanizer and release it commercially, but britney and/or her producers wouldn't allow it, i couldn't call the track "britney spears - womanizer (skip remix)". i could have some session musicians re-record the stuff i want to sample and make them as close to the original as possible or then just release it as a white label (illegally) and name it however i want (could name it in which ever way i want as it'd be illegal anyway)… it could also very well be that marilyn manson doesn't want to have a remix of an old tune of his released under his own name, but could still allow leger to use the samples. who knows.

Those are some good points too.

I wasn't trying to make this thread specifically about Sebastien Leger, or anyone else. I was just wanting to know a bit more about how this 'trend' is allowed to happen, and how people feel about it

The white label "who cares, it's illegal anyway" thing is true. I guess I just think it's lame Not lame that they went and remixed it, just lame that people can't properly credit DIRECT influences in their work.

Edit: Though, Mr Mystery is still right. It's not really any different than a cover, is it?

Never mind, back to COR I go then

___________________

Last edited by Sushipunk on Feb-16-2009 at 12:00