Well, here are some of the criteria I use:

1. First and foremost, what's important is if the product is a good tune. You can't be a good remixer or a good remix if you're producing garbage.

2. Quality relative to the original: that is, is the product only good because the tune being remixed was already good? Or does the remixer make the tune a lot better than it was originally.

3. Innovation: does the track sound too similar to the original? It could be very good, but if it's hardly different than the original, then the remixer hasn't done much himself.

Probably the best remix in my opinion in the last year or so was Altitude - Altitude (S.H.O.K.K. Remix). The original was a very decent, listenable melodic trance tune. It was highly innovative (they only sound similar during the breakdown). It was a big improvement over the original in terms of a huge gain in energy with almost no dropoff in melodic beauty. And of course the tune itself was absolute quality.

But ultimately you should choose whatever criteria you think makes sense. After all, it's only your opinion.

Cheers,

Arbiter

well, for me... standard for good remixers

*not mediocre
*good melody
*dont always use the same sampe or riffs and what not
*easy to identify who remixes b/c their remixes are unique and stands out
*does the original songs justice
*original samples can still be heard
*if/when they remix pop tunes, it doesnt sound like pop music lol

-BLuEOcEaN420

___________________

"We're just two lost souls
Swimming in a fish bowl,
Year after year,
Running over the same old ground.
What have we found?
The same old fears."

For me a remix has to sound (completely) different from the original. Lots of remixes stick to the original and sound slightly different because of the use of other synths. But that's no remix IMO, that's more like a remake or re-edit.

A primary example of a good remix for me is DJ Tiësto - In My Memory (Gabriel & Dresden Elephant Memory Vocal). For me this is a remix. It has some elements of the original, but it sounds completely different. It's a very innovative and creative piece of music.

___________________

Current addictions: Reboot // Radio Slave // Matthias Tanzmann // Mathias Kaden // Audion // Martin Buttrich

good knowledge on how to improve the original melody/harmony ie. able to turn some dull melody/progression to interesting styles without sounding ugly
unique/innovating/meaningful sound/structure
good use of original samples

___________________
[size=1]. . .
Deep, Dark, Tech, Industrial & Psy TrancEaddict

Good topic. I like remixes where the instrument of the melody/main lead is changed. I mean, whats the point of remixing when all youre doing is adding in your own buildup and slapping your name on it? Its all about the melody. Youve got to significantly change the sound of it.

The criteria I would use is a favorite song that I believe could be improved or sound really good with a certain remixers style. Like an Armin van Buuren mix of a song along the lines of his 7 cities remix, I think would go great with Beautiful Together

quote:

Originally posted by Djeebie For me a remix has to sound (completely) different from the original. Lots of remixes stick to the original and sound slightly different because of the use of other synths. But that's no remix IMO, that's more like a remake or re-edit. A primary example of a good remix for me is DJ Tiësto - In My Memory (Gabriel & Dresden Elephant Memory Vocal). For me this is a remix. It has some elements of the original, but it sounds completely different. It's a very innovative and creative piece of music.

Agreed.

___________________

http://www.myspace.com/housessive
http://www.housessive.com/
Housessive Blog


Housessive now on Beatport!