Leaderboard

Oh, Boy... Here we go. O.K. first off, you all have some good, valid points. Some of these points though, I'd still like to address. As a Fan. Not as Musician, not as ReMixer, just as a Fan (of remixes and music in general). I feel like my english skills are already dropping because I'm nervous as hell (social anxiety speaking) but I'll try to keep this as professional as possible. I've been lurking on OC ReMix since about 2013, I think. I was looking for Deus Ex Style Music and google was like: "Dude, there is some Deus Ex remix stuff right over there!" So, here I am. (Please note that I said "Deus Ex STYLE Music", not remixes, important distinction. Obviously still decided to give those remixes a chance, after looking into the "legal stuff" explanation on this site) I do not (not really) compose or remix anything at this point in time. Even though I have a boatload of ideas, I'm keeping them inside my head for now. The reason for this (as in, "Why I haven't even started to remix OR create any kind of music?"), is precisely what is being discussed in this thread. You Know? What is REALLY original? What is enough of your own "seasoning"? Questions like this! Because I fear, as soon as I do something original, there will definitely be some guy being like: "Dude, you totally ripped this off of composer XYZ!", that I literally never heard of. Or maybe I did, in fact, rip a composer off without realising it. Might actually happen to me. >_> My Brother has a more or less professional musical background, so I do have some experience in general, with me helping him compose and arrange things for his orchestral activities. Well, sometimes, it's more or less a rare experience, also do not take credit for it. It's basically just some creative input, not much to brag about. But I DO tend to help him out, if I feel like he needs help. Point being, I do kinda know how it feels like to actually compose and arrange and/or remix. Even though about 80% of it is just "theoretical knowledge". That all said, I remember a tiny discussion about people coming to OCR not for the ReMixers, but for the work of the original composer. A few pages back. That, at least from my personal point of view, is not true. I personally am, in fact, here for the ReMixers. Many of my favorite remixes on OCR are from games I never played, soundtracks I never heard. No nostalgia attached. Just me wanting to witness different visions from different artists on different songs (or sometimes even the same song). Maybe I am the exception to the rule? I don't know, but... The appreciation of video game music is what I am here for. The philosophy of OverClocked ReMix, so to speak. However, it is kinda true, that I may not want to check out the original stuff (from ReMixers, in this case), I admit that. It depends on what kind of music it is and what kind of mood I'm in. And I also admit, I do favor the: "Your remix belongs to you, even though the original song does not!", argument. It's a complicated topic, with lots of different and somewhat controversial opinions. Of course one can always fall back on the typical: "but legally speaking..." stuff... But I don't think this is healthy (not always). Especially considering that, just because something is law, doesn't really make it "right" or "just". There are many laws that are "unjust" in this world. And considering laws CAN change and are man-made to begin with... >_> Of course, there SHOULD definitely be laws, I'm NOT an anarchist, and composers (or in general "content creators") should definitely be protected from straight up piracy or plagiarism. It's just that I'm wondering... Is a remix really plagiarism? And what about "original content" that is... let's call it "heavily inspired"? Isn't that the popular description these days? How much leeway should we give artists? Should we only care if someone admits to plagiarism? Essentially turning a blind eye to everyone just because of an "original name" or (maybe) one or two actual original things in something? Example: I create a game. I call it "Final Dubstep 'n' Dungeons Fantasy Quest". I clearly use large parts of the DnD-System, let's say 75%, then continue to copy the basic story of Final Fantasy (about 60%, with clearly Final Fantasy "inspired" character names, like Sid, Yuppie and Skwall), but give it a modern, highly Dubstep/Cyberpunk inspired setting (and with that I basically mean a Neuromancer-like setting with generic, Skrillex-like sounding dubstep), with the DJ being an actual mandatory party member that "plays" the music in game, all combined with a nice 16-Bit graphics style, of course. Original enough? Would it be any more original just because I call it "Hideous Dubstep Dungeon Day" or tag it as "Parody", you know, just in case Square calls me? I suppose this example is slightly out of place (slightly because this IS a site about video game music after all), but still, you probably all get what I mean, right? The Idea is my own, the name somewhat original, but everything in this game is "heavily inspired". You can all hold on to your own opinions, I am not (not even trying) to force my opinion on any of you. Just making some statements about my personal point of view, how I think about some of these things and what kind of questions are circling in my mind. I find this thread to be very interesting, if somewhat toxic at times. I mean, hey, you got ME to write something, that's a big Achievement. Since I usually don't engage in discussions, english not being my native language and in general thinking people probably won't care about what I have to say, especially if things get heated.

This is most likely true, very good point. And some artists might like adaptation more than creation. Maybe to the point where it actually makes sense to specialise in it? It's, of course, not wrong to have influences even in completely original compositions. From a business perspective it can even be desirable to give your listeners something that sounds vaguely familiar. Might help in gathering a larger audience a little sooner. But you may also end up being unfaithful to your own creative process/vision at that point. Depending on how idealistic each individual composer/arranger is, that may be a problem. Or maybe it won't. I should also mention that there are many creative commons musicians that create original music and actively encourage remixing. Using open licenses to promote music, sometimes even allowing the free distribution of all (original, in this case) songs, as long as credit is given. And most of the time, within these communities, remixes are held in very high regard. And that is absolutely fine. It's your personal decision. Many other people might not be happy about this, though. Maybe feeling disrespected, or rather, feeling like their (hard) work is being disrespected. I mean aside from this thread, in general. Even some really big musicians would probably "strongly resist" your decision, considering how remixes (or sampling) are almost baked into the foundation of several genres. I personally think it's sad to see another ReMixer quit (my own personal opinion about your decision) but other than that, I pretty much respect it. Can't speak for everyone, though, and do understand why many people got kinda mad at you. Your choice of words might have hurt some feelings and/or pride. Another bit of personal advice (this time hopefully less broad and generic sounding), be proud of your ReMixes. I'd encourage that. Since they probably influenced who you are today and what you want to do with your musical career.

I agree with all of your points, and especially like this last part. I've been thinking about a way to try to summarize this, and I think the easiest way to put it is that it's a matter of creation vs adaptation. Perhaps we're at a point where there will always be a little of each present in both, but the latter ultimately only exists because of the former. Therefore, no matter how much I may prefer a cover, I just can't place as much artistic value, both as a listener and as a writer, on it as I can on the band/composer's own ideas

Thank you, I take that as a compliment. Interesting, my brother gave almost the exact same advice to me. I personally don't think it's depressing. Actually, I think it's interesting. It obviously depends on everyone's personal point of view. Let me give you some personal advice in exchange for yours. Since one can learn a lot from remixing (and also covering) existing songs, even going as far as almost changing it up so much it may well be "original", it holds a lot of potential for musical growth. So going about it with creative, open thoughts may be the best course of action. Same goes for arrangements. Through arranging music, we can learn and grow into the kind of musician we truly want to be. Composing, of course, would be the next logical step. Sounds very generic, now that I actually wrote this. You all probably know this already. I also feel like someone wrote something similar before, probably several people. Well, since this is what I basically told my younger brother when he was struggling, I'll leave it in. And I admit, this is me being carefull because some of my favorite ReMixers posted comments in here, including you @AngelCityOutlaw, so this puts me in a kind of awkward position. Especially considering the different opinions of many professional musicians. I mean, look at Trent Reznor, he gave an interview where he described how he felt about Johnny Cash covering "Hurt" (which I think was mentioned in this thread a few hours earlier). He described hearing another person sing one of his most personal songs as "very strange". Another description he gave was that it felt like "someone else kissing your girlfriend". He did feel honored about it, though. And Johnny Cash definitely made that song his own. I like his cover, never even heard the original Nine Inch Nail song, but gotta still say, the original song obviously belongs to Trent Reznor. This is NOT supposed to sound condescending or as dismal as it probably does. Quite the contrary actually. Like I said, I think all these different perspectives are very interesting. And I DO love cover songs, remixes, rearrangements, for me personally, it's about music in general. There are remixes and covers that I think are better than the originals. But does this objectively mean the remix (or cover) has more merit? That is something I don't know. Part of me wants to say: "Yes, definitely!", you know, in a kind of cheerful way, to encourage cooperation and more freedom for artistic fields... And then there's that other part of me... >_> But no matter how you look at it, I definitely understand any kind of strong feeling people might have for or against the opinions and/or facts presented in this thread. And I accept pretty much all of them, keeping a more neutral, yet still kind of realistic approach to this topic. The most important thing is the craft itself, I suppose. The art.

Awesome album, gotta say, there is not a single remix I don't like.

My last thought, which I'm giving, leaving, and not coming back to: One of my remixes is so far removed from the original that if you take away the original melody, because of the altered harmony and counterpoint, it sounds like a completely different piece. I've actually performed said remix without the original melody as an original composition for a graduate composition recital. An analysis of it shows that without the melody, the style, harmony, and counterpoint are so far removed from the original that it can classify as a completely different piece no matter how you look at it. I mean like...it's now less than 10% the speed of the original, the melody was almost completely reharmonized. The harmony doesn't even classify as tonal anymore at this point. It has a loose key center, so it's key centric, but the function of the chords don't exist in a traditionally tonal sense. If you speed it up 10x, then the groups of measures together suggest a tonal progression, but the actual phrases in the piece are not tonal. Basically I wrote a contrafact of the Underwater theme from Super Mario Bros. I'm a jazz musician, so the idea of taking several tunes with the exact same content and changing the melody is normal. The concept of contrafact is kind of a center point of the genre. Sometimes when people write a tune, the original writers fade into obscurity while the performers of said piece get credited. Donna Lee is credited to Miles Davis, but that is heavily debated. It is a contrafact of the tune Indiana, and is practiced as such. The chord changes to I Got Rhythm are so iconic that we just basically call them rhythm changes. There is no effort at all to hide the fact that it's basically the exact content of the song minus the melody. There are other times where tunes are arranged in DRASTICALLY different styles and although they are the original song, they contributed to the development of the genre, or in some cases multiple genres in a significant way. Many musicians do arrangements literally all the time to develop their compositional and arrangement technique. More times than not, doing an arrangement of a VG tune in the style of a composer helps me learn more about the writing of that composer than if I were writing an original tune in that style. It takes less time, so I can get more out of it really quickly. Brahms wrote Theme and Variations on a Theme by Haydn. But Brahms is credited as the composer, not the arranger. In the classical canon, having a theme and variations form virtually always results in a new piece, even though the melodic content was written by somebody else. Brahms, Mozart, Beethoven, and Strauss are some of the major composers in the classical canon, and they all wrote theme and variations on the themes of somebody else, yet are credited as the composers. Theme and Variations on a Theme by Haydn was basically a remix of a piece by Haydn. But Brahms is credited as composer. I mean if by added some seasoning you mean I dumped so many seasonings to it that it's basically a mountain of rainbow powder with no liquid left, then yes. I just added some seasoning of my own. That is a simplification of what goes on and you know it, so please drop the condescending attitude toward the matter, thank you very much. And please for the love of God don't do the thing where you quote each individual sentence of this post and make me defend it line by line, because I have better things to do with my time. People get tired of that REALLY quickly, because more times than not, you simplify what they said in your response, which just adds fuel to the fire rather than continuing the discussion. People waste so much more time correcting your simplifications than actually continuing the discussion because you "don't give a shit."

I just want to say this artwork is bomb. I want a physical copy real bad.

Well then. Good thing SD3 is an ARPG, then.

Hilarious comparison . Except I'm certain we'd all like to think that Songs of Light & Darkness had a Positive reception upon release lmao. Poor Duke. (edit) Confession: I still need to beat SD3!! That's next in my bucket list damnit lmao. Will be fun to compare the remixes to the originals as I play!

This project made me OC ReMixer! Congratulation everyone! I love you all!!

The Duke Nukem Forever of OCR. Also, congrats

I'll do one better. I can't stand JRPGS I like the album, though