Whats the difference between a remix and a cover version?

[Doddsy]

I was reading on Wikipedia about what makes a remix and what makes a cover version. Check them out yourself if you want. Well it got me thinking as to what is the difference between the two? They seem very similiar these days as the early days of remixing was just making extended 12" etc. So are we sometimes just doing cover versions at RKO and not remixing? Any thoughts on this?

[analoq]

My personal definition is that if it samples the original recording, then it's a remix. Otherwise, it's a cover. So a lot of the "remixes" here would be covers by that logic.

At OCR we have a bemusing lexicon where a cover is an arrangement (bad), a remix is the original audio with drumloops or whatever over it (bad) and a ReMix is a rearrangement of the original (good). Yeah, it never made sense to me either.

One interesting thing from the article was that the term 'cover' can be used as a pejorative, which is true. 'Remix' does have a more hip ring to it.

cheers.

[Hazel]

Probably just as many opinions about this as there is people.
In my own little world a cover is a exact copy of the original with new instruments. A remix is a new version with own material in it.

If people say : "This is a Comic Bakery", then it's a cover
But if they say : "This sounds like Comic Bakery", then you made another version of it. And in my opinion a remix.

That's just my opinion about that.. And I never could see the purpose of just making a cover.. Why make a cover if you already think the original track is perfect and doesn't need extra material ?

[analoq]

In my own little world a cover is a exact copy of the original with new instruments

I know people who think this way, so maybe you can help me understand: If you take an extreme example like Alanis Morissette's version of "My Humps" it is completely different musically but it is referred to by the music media as a "cover". There are many other deviant derivatives in pop music referred to as covers as well I could offer as examples.

Despite this, why do you hold to your definition?

[Mayhem]

I generally use remix for commercial songs if they retain the same vocals. A cover would rerecord the vocals.

[Makke]

The notion that you can cover all possible aspects of rearrangement in two words - cover and remix - is perhaps an impossibility. For my definitions we need to have one more "type" - interpretation.

So my definitions would go, and they're in no way fool proof:

Cover - An attempt to recreate the original, perhaps not exactly alike, but at least keeping the same style, sound and vibe.
Interpretation - A complete rework of the arrangement, and most often change in style, mood, pace and/or beat from the original.
Remix - An interpretation based on the original, either by sampling or recreation, but with significant changes and artistic input from the interpretor, but still keeping with the original "look and feel".

Then we of course need to debate what "significant changes and artistic input" means.

Just my 2 bit.

[trace]

For me a cover is the artists interpretation of a track and a remix is the artists more wierd creative side interpretation of the track

Allthough I think it is up the the artist himself what he thinks is a cover/remix

Like my Blackmail remix I have named it Hardcopy cause it is mostly a stright of copy of the sid but with my sounding interpretation of it

[Doddsy]

I think I'm abit more clearer now on the two after reading these posts.

IMO then a cover is a piece of music where the musician doesn't deviate too much from the original arrangement/structure allthough the instruments could be different (think of Tainted love by Marilyn Manson and then by Soft cell) which is why they work so well in vocal pop music so people can easily warm to the track.

A remix is like a cover but goes further in that a musician changes the arrangement to suit themselves and adds their own interpretation / music & arrangement to the piece which is why this way of working works so well in the dance music style.

[Chris Abbott]

I think a remix is when the finished product contains some of the original recording it's dealing with: i.e. a connection to the original recording, such as a sample. So about half of BIT 3 is remixes (in which the original SID appears), and the other half is covers (no SID). In order for it to be a remix, it would have to contain some actual mix.

Chris

[sumppi]

As a third option, I consider my versions to be remakes, even if they do use bits of the original SID occasionally (like Zoids). I think it mirrors nicely the use of the term with games, like the recent remake of Bionic Commando etc - it's the same game, just a bit different and radically more modern implementation.

[Analog-X64]

IMHO.

Cover = A copy or clone of an original song with instruments that sound similar and vocals sung as close as possible to the original, and same arrangement.

Remix = Different instruments, arrangement, some additional Riffs not found in the original track and the track should
still be identifiable as some sort of derivate of the original track.

I do not consider something a remix or cover when only 5 percent of the original is used.

example: for the past 5 years or more, I've heard commercial remixes released for bands where, its some DJ doing whatever he wants, and there maybe a 2 second vocal sample from the original track and thats it, and the remix has nothing in common with the original track that its supposed to be a remix of.

[beyond]

My definition - might be a repetition of the above:

Cover: You cover, meaning that you'll have to go through all that's in the original. You need to follow the general composition (as in intro verse refrain bridge outro and solos). In a way you are "just" playing the song, and you might try to make a 1:1 copy. In Danish law "a straight cover" is always allowed as long as you pay distribution rights to the rights owner. You are not allowed to change melody, chords, solos or composition.

Remix: You can basically do anything you like. It might help you if there is a slight resemblance to the song you're trying to remix - people that you're are trying to reach should be able to recognize just a little bit, otherwise it's just your own song. In Danish law you have to get specific clearance from the rights owner to distribute your remix. It's your own duty and responsibility to get this clearance and without it a CD may be recalled to be destroyed.

[Infamous]

To me

Cover is a 1:1 version of the tune, just with a vast update of the sounds but keeping the feel, vibe and soundscape of the original tune.

Though there is alot of argument space, as there are many different 1:1 covers of many different tunes and some of them feel like the original others sound different (partly because of the sounds used within) and can sound like a remix more than a straight copy until you go and listen to the original and notice its still being played note for note, the arranger has just been insanely clever/talented and this usually leads to a red face from me.

A remix is taking a part of that tune that is instantly recognisable as THAT tune and then building up around it something else, maybe going completely mad with it, maybe just taking a 8 bar section of it and building from that .. maybe keeping the same kind of feel (say an 80's blue monday style snare smashing and brash polysynths) but not sticking to the original format, adding their own parts to it, vocals, or doing them entirely acappela (though some would argue thats a re-interpretation).

Either way I still think there is plenty of space for 1:1 covers there are thousands of sids out there and not all of them have been touched yet, its a VAST resource for musicians to touch on and get practice, or fun, or just for something to do on a boring sunday afternoon and share with us, as much as there is plenty of space for experimentation and wild idea's.

[M.A.F]

To me

Cover is a 1:1 version of the tune, just with a vast update of the sounds but keeping the feel, vibe and soundscape of the original tune.

Though there is alot of argument space, as there are many different 1:1 covers of many different tunes and some of them feel like the original others sound different (partly because of the sounds used within) and can sound like a remix more than a straight copy until you go and listen to the original and notice its still being played note for note, the arranger has just been insanely clever/talented and this usually leads to a red face from me.

A remix is taking a part of that tune that is instantly recognisable as THAT tune and then building up around it something else, maybe going completely mad with it, maybe just taking a 8 bar section of it and building from that .. maybe keeping the same kind of feel (say an 80's blue monday style snare smashing and brash polysynths) but not sticking to the original format, adding their own parts to it, vocals, or doing them entirely acappela (though some would argue thats a re-interpretation).

Either way I still think there is plenty of space for 1:1 covers there are thousands of sids out there and not all of them have been touched yet, its a VAST resource for musicians to touch on and get practice, or fun, or just for something to do on a boring sunday afternoon and share with us, as much as there is plenty of space for experimentation and wild idea's.

This was my view many years ago Infamous at a time when Remix64 were pushing cover versions as "remixes".

I made my opinions pretty clear back then but folks didnt really appreciate them very much here,let alone talk about it.

At least now members are questioning what a "remix" means to them personaly.

[Jan Lund Thomsen]

To me "remix" is just the name that (historically speaking) got attached to recreating C64 tunes using 'contemporary' gear[1]. I can't remember what it was called back in the day when the Triad MP3z site was the place to go, but OCR definately labeled what they were doing as "remixing" back then.

So whether you want to call it covers, remixes, or reinterpretations doesn't really matter. It all boils down to taking something that already exists and doing something else with it.

[1] Yes, the piano has been around longer than the breadbin. Hence the quotes around 'contemporary'.