Commodore Remix

> .(unless Chris has gone in a big huff with me)
I said what I wanted to say, and we agree to disagree. It's no biggie. In fact, it's "remixes" versus "covers" all over again. I think Rafael has a lot to say on this subject

Chris

M.A.F wrote:

Tas wrote:With due respect M.A.F your making a distinction between art and taste. Just because certain music doesn't ring your bell does not mean that it doesn't ring others

Thats true to a certain extent Tas,but i was talking about remixing in general.

Hardly anyone bothers to even try and create a remix. From what ive been able to hear of remixes the last few years,it seems that many people dont seem to know what a remix actually is.
Its definately not keeping the original track and then adding a hi -hat or a snare sample for instance.

Re-create the tune yourself,forget what the original "entire" tune sounded like( i can never remmember that anyway),take the bits you remmember(these are mostly the melodic parts for me atleast) and then make your own version.
Suprisingly what you end up with is still a catchy yet different tune.

Again having said that,its only my opinion.

Hopefully opinions are still allowed on R64.(unless Chris has gone in a big huff with me)

I see where your coming from, but these types of mixes (The ones with just hi-hats etc) generally do not get through the RKO queue these days. The ones which get through the queue generally are very much like what you say. The instances where the simply adding of Hi-hats and stuff are virtually over on RKO because they get axed before they even appear.

I am from your school of though strange as it seems in taste but the one thing i've noticed over the years is that there is deffinitely a split between this. Some dislike the manipulation of the original, while others want it.

To be sure so far this year i've really not been impressed with alot of the mixes released (with the odd exception).. It's not been the best of years imho.

Definition of a Remix: A remix is when a song is taken by the producer and reworked in some way so that it sounds different. This can be the addition of extra instruments, rearrangement of the lyrics, or sometimes even additional vocals not contained on the original release. In some cases a remix is so different that one will not know it started from the original song without careful listening

Now I dont agree with everything in the above definition of a remix.

I dont mind SID mixed with a Drum Track + Bassline and a few other elements if done properly. I also like remixes which are done from scratch but in many ways sound like the original. I dont like remixes where they dont sound like the original at all, why bother calling them a remix? Might as well give them a new name and release them as a new song.

I dont particulary care for C64 remixes that sound like they were done with an Orchestra, but that does not mean they are bad, its just something I dont care for.

And RKO always seems to come up with these arguments. Just because something does not appear on RKO does not make it bad. I like RKO and the quality of songs that make it on there, but I dont think is LAW.

Tas wrote:Some dislike the manipulation of the original, while others want it.

To be sure so far this year i've really not been impressed with alot of the mixes released (with the odd exception).. It's not been the best of years imho.

I take em either way, there have been at least two CORKING sid n drums mixes but I do find originality holds a lot of the key to getting better votes on RKO. But, if I like it I vote it good etc..

This year may have not been the best but there has def been a lot of new remixers appearing which is always a welcome boost

one thing is certain: remixing is really boring those days...

devilhood wrote:
M.A.F I agree with you, but you kinda went a bit out of your way to get the point across.

To say that if someone doesn't match the "zone" in which Hubbard was in, shouldn't even bother remixing, is unnecessarily harsh.
You're kinda shooting yourself in the foot with that one.
Everyone that remixes has the potential to expand their creativity and scope if they continue to work on things, regardless of what C64 legend they decide to remix.

Sure. .
However, if you if the remix is simply a case of adding a drum and bass arrangement to the original recording, it's still considered something new and fits in with the definition of a remix, so we can't really argue anything on that side. think that it is crap, then that's fine as well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Most remixers carefully read the opinions we give about their music, and I'm pretty sure this makes a significant impact.

Having said all that, the tracks on naughtyboys myspace do not tickle my eardrums in the slightest. I'm not a big fan of hearing the original 8-bit SID mixed in with one or two contemporary instruments. It's more of a plug of the actual SID, which I'd prefer to hear in its original form anyday.

Pawel.


"As for remixes not being as creative as Rob Hubbard... well, that's not surprising. Hardly anyone was as in the zone and creative as Rob in his prime. It's a lot to live up to. "

The above quote was from chris. When i mentioned the "zone" i was responding to what he said in his post.
I stand by what i said in response.If the people now trying to remix Rob Hubbard tunes these days cant possibly have his creativity then why bother to try? And end up with inferior results? (in comparison).

devilhood wrote:
if the remix is simply a case of adding a drum and bass arrangement to the original recording, it's still considered something new and fits in with the definition of a remix, so we can't really argue anything on that side. think that it is crap, then that's fine as well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Most remixers carefully read the opinions we give about their music, and I'm pretty sure this makes a significant impact..


"..considered something new.." by who?

What is your definition of a remix Pawel? I would find it intresting to hear.

I never stated that any of the tunes on c64 or amigaremix were "crap" as you said. I didnt believe they were remixes thats all.

Sorry Maf, buggered your post up a bit... pressed "Edit" instead of "Quote"... It's all there still though mate just not in the way it should.

Forgot now what i was gonna say!

Thanks Tas for making that post very confusing for me to read hehe

M.A.F, I think you're just looking for an argument really.
When I say "..considered something new.."
that is according to the actual definition of the word 'Remix'.
To create a remix, you only need to recombine audio tracks from an original recording and produce something new from it, and 'new' is an extremely loose term if you think about it.

Pawel.

If the people now trying to remix Rob Hubbard tunes these days cant possibly have his creativity then why bother to try? And end up with inferior results? (in comparison).

Education and fun mostly. It's the journey that a remixer should enjoy. Everyone has someone they venerate and try to live up to. Most of the time they fail. But the attempt is noble, if the attempt is earnest.

Chris

Chris Abbott wrote:

If the people now trying to remix Rob Hubbard tunes these days cant possibly have his creativity then why bother to try? And end up with inferior results? (in comparison).

Education and fun mostly. It's the journey that a remixer should enjoy. Everyone has someone they venerate and try to live up to. Most of the time they fail. But the attempt is noble, if the attempt is earnest.

Chris

Very well put Chris, I was about to try and convey something similar but you beat me to it

devilhood wrote:Thanks Tas for making that post very confusing for me to read hehe

Heh, sorry my friend.. i guess it's down to old age or stress or even both.

Feel free to slap me with a wet trout

I like Seth's remixes, and the fact he can play them live.

Thanx murry (merman)!

HOw many peeps in the scene actually perfomr live? Just currious...Ill make a new post for this one too..

-naughtyboy

naughtyboy wrote:Thanx murry (merman)!

HOw many peeps in the scene actually perfomr live? Just currious...Ill make a new post for this one too..

-naughtyboy

I must admit I have been listening to Skate a lot, the drums are brilliant

Analog-X wrote:Definition of a Remix: A remix is when a song is taken by the producer and reworked in some way so that it sounds different. This can be the addition of extra instruments, rearrangement of the lyrics, or sometimes even additional vocals not contained on the original release. In some cases a remix is so different that one will not know it started from the original song without careful listening

Now I dont agree with everything in the above definition of a remix.

Analog-X. I agree with you my man.I do,i actually agree.(except for when you said producer,did you mean the remixer?

Such a simple definition though.I would never have (or even have had the capacity to even get near such a thought).

Thanks to you other guys(tas and chris and that)as well as others for your replys.
Many of 'em were very much on the creative side verbally.
Wait...
Wait...
Wait a bit longer....
hang on...
erm....

erm...

Its a pity that many of the tunes that some of the people who (oops) actually have made remixes (dont take that comment to heart tas your not included 'cos..well you know)....dont have as much creativity musically.
In other words,in comparison to what i have managed to say...i feel your music is SGITE oops SHITE.

There we go MAF has been very childish,,,again.