Whats the difference between a remix and a cover version?

[LMan]

What Jan said.

[Chris Abbott]

What Jan said.

Indeed... it's just all art, anyway. Who, in the end cares as long as the end result has artistic merit?



Chris

[M.A.F]

It all boils down to taking something that already exists and doing something else with it.

Agreed Jan.

[M.A.F]

I am unable to fathom why peeps on this site cannot will not or are unable to distinguish between a track a tune or a song that was composed by the original artist and copied note for note by a fan and reproduced using other instruments (a cover version),and a track a tune or a song that used a part of the original artists composition to make a new track.Thats why bands or their record companies commision remixers to make the original song sound completely different

Its called a "Remix".

Not hard to understand surely.

(I fully expect to be ignored completely or attacked in some subtle way or not so subtle way)

[LMan]

Would you call it an attack if someone doesn't really care how it's called? I think it'd just be a different opinion. You might call it ignorant of the matter.

"Remix" is the established cachphrase of the community, of course that doesn't mean each release is technically a remix.

[merman]

I am unable to fathom why peeps on this site cannot will not or are unable to distinguish between a track a tune or a song that was composed by the original artist and copied note for note by a fan and reproduced using other instruments (a cover version),and a track a tune or a song that used a part of the original artists composition to make a new track.Thats why bands or their record companies commision remixers to make the original song sound completely different

Its called a "Remix".

Not hard to understand surely.

(I fully expect to be ignored completely or attacked in some subtle way or not so subtle way)

Hmm, I would say there is a flaw in your logic, in that cover versions can be quite different from the original (cf Ryan Adams version of Wonderwall)

[Chris Abbott]

Would you call it an attack if someone doesn't really care how it's called? I think it'd just be a different opinion. You might call it ignorant of the matter.

"Remix" is the established cachphrase of the community, of course that doesn't mean each release is technically a remix.

Indeed, not caring != attacking.

[peter w]

Interesting reading, and I think I will stick with that "Remix" is a catchphrase used by the community. Also that as long as it has artistic merit to it, it's all good.

I do it for the creative process and to learn and develop my skills. When I start a "Remix" I don't think let's not make a cover or let's not make a dance remix using only the chord structure. I just do what inspires me or just to try something new. Of course when people say hey that's a cover or hey that's just sounds from a sid made into something completely different they kind of miss the point. Because of our outlook and criteria on what must "be" in a "remix" I think it affects our judgement of the track itself. I can be wrong I can be right but what's important to me is that people enjoy "remixing" and that people enjoy listening to "remixes".

[RobinsonMason]

"Cover" to me evokes the local band that does 1:1 Scorpion tunes AKA a "tribute" band. Like when Miley Cyrus does a cover of some 80's song.

I'm not quite sure if the same applies when a musician takes an Ultima SID tune and then remakes it to sound "authentic" and less computer-ish. Here's a great example from Ultima 5 (though technically only the C128 was capable of playing Ultima 5 music in-game, the C64 version used the same disks but had no music): http://lazarus.thehawkonline.com/music/ ... sMarch.mp3

More here: http://lazarus.thehawkonline.com/music.html

For the record, I find the Remix 64 community to have very few such "remakes" on the whole. This community seems more geared toward musicians who are looking to put their unique stamp and flavor on songs that were popular with those who were into the music scene back when. The remixes are enjoyable because of the creativity of those involved in remixing them. The quality of the original games these songs were attached to is secondary. Just my opinion, but it also does not deal heavily in music that doesn't suit a sort of electronic "techno" beat. (though there certainly are many non-techno remixes)

That's why you can look at RKO and see relatively few Ultima "remixes" despite the popularity of that game on the C64. You can actually find more "remakes" of Ultima songs around the web in other places - and they are generally coming from the later Ultimas (U7, for example) post-64 era.

As a C64 gaming fan (and mostly into RPGs, Strategy and adventure games), I've only recently become familiar with several mainstays of the C64 Remixing community, because I was never into the budget tape games popular in Europe, or the music scene, and only vaguely aware of some popular musicians through games I played like Times of Lore.

[Vosla]

Heh, some fuel on the fire...

There are 'remixes' that were made by simply taking the original *.mod and putting them through a modern tracker with just better (stock) instruments. Now that's sad to claim that it's a remix, even it might raise the overall soundquality of the module a bit - it's a (polished) copy.

Anybody faithfully reconstructing an old amiga module might come up with a painfully cycle-exact re-modelling of the original which sounds so perfect that the untrained ear might also just hear 'better instruments' and assume it's an 'advanced' blatant copy like in the first case.

Honestly, I can't hear a difference in many a case if the copy wasn't made too sloppy.

I avoid most of the remades as often enough the gritty and raspy original appeals better to me than a revamped version that doesn't add more than sound quality. :-/

[Analog-X64]

Thats why bands or their record companies commision remixers to make the original song sound completely different

Its called a "Remix".

Not hard to understand surely.

(I fully expect to be ignored completely or attacked in some subtle way or not so subtle way)

This is not an attack, just my opinion or observation on this particular statement.

I used to love 12" Remixes of Tunes, that took the original track, and sprinkled some new elements here and there, and at the same time extending the track from its original 3:30-4:30 to 5:30-6:30.

I stopped buying these remixes, when bands / companies started commissioning to some hip / cool DJ that I've never heard of who's probably known in the club scene in new york somewhere.

The end result is Name Of Song (Name of DJ REMIX), then when you hear the track, its a completely different track, with maybe a 1 second sample, or distorted element, if you didnt know which song it was supposed to be a remix of, you wouldn't know that it was a remix of that song.

At that point, I dont think they should even bother calling it a remix, they should just give it a new Track name, and put in the credits that a sample was used with permission from the original band.

[Thunderer]

I agree with Andrew. I would've thought that a cover can be a completely different reinterpretation of a song, which may include different arrangements, different instruments, different vocal interpretation. Take for example Aztec Camera's cover of Van Halen's jump. Sounds nothing like it.
Another case in point is Knocking on Heaven's door by (add your favourite artist who covered this song), but mainly Guns and Roses.

So I think the opinion that a cover means only your local pub band playing hits trying to replicate the sounds, arrangement, instrumentation and vocal delivery 100% is a bit too strict.

A remix would have to include a segment of the original recording and the song being rebuilt around that, be it a beat, bass line, the chorus...