AngelCityOutlaw

Do You Still ReMix — Why Or Why Not?

123 posts in this topic

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JohnStacy said:

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."

nah, i won't quote each individual sentence... i'm just gonna go ahead and quote the whole damn thing and make superfluous, unmitigated love to it because i can't heart your comment more than once and that's not nearly enough.

to briefly roll with your point about your SMB underwater arrangement, tho... i perform "Rime of the Wandering Seafarer" live all the time both when i'm solo as well as with my band amidst an entire set of strictly "original" material. nearly all of the time, nobody is the wiser. literally had an actual videogame composer in the crowd once who later admitted still didn't even recognize it as being a zelda tune let alone a cover until i mentioned it after the tune had ended. that it fit seamlessly with the rest of the set while being tonally consistent with my specific sound is precisely the point. i guess original vocals and lyrics, as well as an entirely different song structure, instrumentation, tempo and key is "seasoning." it's a different food group, dude. it doesn't sound like koji kondo at all. it sounds 100% like zykO and always will. 

can anyone really say that Sublime's "Summertime (Doin' Time)" is anyyyyyything like Gershwin's iconic aria? lol or Ella's rendition? was Ella wasting her time, too??? how about billie holliday? or billy stewart? *shrug*

so here are a few more hearts for you, good sir:

<3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is it's pretty shocking how many of you seem to feel: "As long as it's got enough of my touch, it's mine." Even though John's examples of classical variations have the original composer's name in the title. I assume I can expect no legal action nor royalty payments to you if I copy one of the original tunes from your arrangements or pieces, then? Because after all, what with my variations to it and all, it will become uniquely mine now, right? 

12lT.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as i can tell, nobody in this thread at any point showed a lack of understanding about the legality of the matter. i'm pretty sure everybody has acknowledged that, legally, an arrangement is not your IP and that anytime you are going to distribute any covered material, you'll have to pay licensing fees. this is baked into every single distributor whether it is distrokid or LANDR or whomever and all the legal entities such as ASCAP or BMI. if you're going to record a cover and sell it, you're going to pay for it either up front or on the back end

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zykO said:

as far as i can tell, nobody in this thread at any point showed a lack of understanding about the legality of the matter. i'm pretty sure everybody has acknowledged that, legally, an arrangement is not your IP and that anytime you are going to distribute any covered material, you'll have to pay licensing fees. this is baked into every single distributor whether it is distrokid or LANDR or whomever and all the legal entities such as ASCAP or BMI. if you're going to record a cover and sell it, you're going to pay for it either up front or on the back end

and why do you suppose that is, zykO?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bizarre question.

because it's the law? put in place to protect the work put in by artists? (did you catch the part that you yourself highlighted where an artist covering or arranging an existing tune can still make a living from it by paying licensing fees? did you catch how that's not illegal? in other words, legality has nothing to do with the matter of originality and creativity in art, just in the protection of artists and their hard work no matter what they're doing?)

i realize you're having a real hard time thinking outside of the box of tangible, basic definitions of things but it's pretty obvious those are different discussion points

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zykO said:

because it's the law? put in place to protect the work put in by artists? (did you catch the part that you yourself highlighted where an artist covering or arranging an existing tune can still make a living from it by paying licensing fees? did you catch how that's not illegal?

But why is it the law? If everything is ultimately derivative of something else (like what Phonetic Hero thinks) then why have this law at all if nothing is really original, right? and you said

8 hours ago, zykO said:

literally had an actual videogame composer in the crowd once who later admitted still didn't even recognize it as being a zelda tune let alone a cover until i mentioned it after the tune had ended. that it fit seamlessly with the rest of the set while being tonally consistent with my specific sound is precisely the point. i guess original vocals and lyrics, as well as an entirely different song structure, instrumentation, tempo and key is "seasoning." it's a different food group, dude. it doesn't sound like koji kondo at all. it sounds 100% like zykO and always will. 

 and yet you can still be successfully sued if you were to release a recording that uses a zelda melody without proper licensing agreements. Why though? How can they get away with this since it sounds "100% zykO, right? Have you considered that maybe it's because it's not 100% zykO at work here, even by your own admission? It's not that I don't understand your style doesn't shine through, but that's irrelevant.

3 hours ago, zykO said:

i realize you're having a real hard time thinking outside of the box of tangible, basic definitions of things

Your issue, my friend and the cause of this disagreement, is precisely that you are not concerned enough with the tangible, basic truths.

You know, Meteo Xavier had something in a thread of his recently that has really resonated with me, and I think hits the mark in this mad tangent of a debate this thread spiraled into.

Quote

12. The more artistic a person is, the less skill they have for conventional thinking ideas in audio like how business really works, humility, common sense and even at times common decency to others. This is not a guaranteed exclusion, but the "artist's brain" phenomenon really does seem to be true.

There can be no doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are whole genres of music built on sampling where you take not only the notes but also the performance and recording of another artists work and alter it into something different, and people respect the artistry and originality of THAT when it is done well. No one is disputing the legality of having to credit and license stuff, the OP was just needlessly provocative..towards all of the content creators for this site. Of course that was going to be contentious. Wanting to work more on music with original melodies or even little or no melody if that's your thing is understandable, but that can be stated without taking anything away from other artists. It can be said that *I* don't feel like a remix is my own, that is different than telling others the way they feel about their work is incorrect and it's just musical cosplay

On 10/17/2018 at 9:07 PM, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Nobody outside of the OCR bubble is going to consider your remixes yours: They'll see it as composer's X's song and you just arranged it — because that's the truth.

Does anybody not consider Jimi Hendrix's cover of All Along the Watchtower his? Johnny Cash's Hurt? Dropkick Murphys' Fields of Athenry? Maybe people think it's different if it's video game music...Army of the Pharaohs' Bloody Tears tho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shadowpsyc said:

There are whole genres of music built on sampling where you take not only the notes but also the performance and recording of another artists work and alter it into something different, and people respect the artistry and originality of THAT when it is done well

I know. I mentioned them.

 

2 hours ago, shadowpsyc said:

No one is disputing the legality of having to credit and license stuff, the OP was just needlessly provocative..towards all of the content creators for this site. Of course that was going to be contentious

It wasn't meant to be anything other than a statement regarding a con of remixing in terms of building a portfolio. Sure caused a lot of butthurt, though.

2 hours ago, shadowpsyc said:

It can be said that *I* don't feel like a remix is my own, that is different than telling others the way they feel about their work is incorrect and it's just musical cosplay

I didn't start telling others that the way I think they view it is wrong until they started flipping the table about it in the first place.

2 hours ago, shadowpsyc said:

Does anybody not consider Jimi Hendrix's cover of All Along the Watchtower his?

I think it's his version of the song. That's different than saying it's his song.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DetectiveSorrow said:

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 a good post. Unfortunate you weren't here to make it earlier :razz:

Regarding your point about holding off on composing for fear of sounding similar to something already out there, never let that stop you. Especially where harmony is concerned, it's truly impossible to come up with something that hasn't been used before. But these are musical devices: chords, scales, structure, etc. are established tools of the trade that allow you to create an infinite variety of combinations, of which something — a tune — emerges that, despite being stylistically similar to something else, is the result of your unique utilization of the craft, and results in something that is purely the product of your work that they will know long after you're dead, is your tune when they hear it. It's like adoption vs biological child: Yeah, you can love the adopted one just as much and raise them as if they were your own, but at the end of the day they didn't come from your DNA.

Why some musicians, especially those who are composers themselves (and this site doesn't accept straight cover tunes), would rank this as being no different from and equal value to simply adapting another composer's piece to fit their style, is something I just don't understand and to be honest — find really depressing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This is a good post. Unfortunate you weren't here to make it earlier :razz:

Regarding your point about holding off on composing for fear of sounding similar to something already out there, never let that stop you. Especially where harmony is concerned, it's truly impossible to come up with something that hasn't been used before. But these are musical devices: chords, scales, structure, etc. are established tools of the trade that allow you to create an infinite variety of combinations, of which something — a tune — emerges that, despite being stylistically similar to something else, is the result of your unique utilization of the craft, and results in something that is purely the product of your work that they will know long after you're dead, is your tune when they hear it.

Thank you, I take that as a compliment.

Interesting, my brother gave almost the exact same advice to me.

Quote

Why some musicians, especially those who are composers themselves (and this site doesn't accept straight cover tunes), would rank this as being no different from and equal value to simply adapting another composer's piece to fit their style, is something I just don't understand and to be honest — find really depressing.

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. :shock:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DetectiveSorrow said:

The most important thing is the craft itself, I suppose. The art.

I agree with all of your points, and especially like this last part. 

23 minutes ago, DetectiveSorrow said:

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... >_>

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AngelCityOutlaw You keep bringing in legalities and law into your arguments. If I'm not mistaken, the topic transcends law. The interpretation alone can make drastic changes-let alone new legislation.

Instead of repeating my arguments in hopes you can specifically challenge it...

I'd like to ask you a question. Would you consider The Animals - The House of the Rising Sun , as The Animals "own" ? Disneys Snow White as their own? Johnny Cash - Hurt, as his own?

"Own" in the context of your words in the original post you made:

Quote

1. I'd simply rather spend the time and energy on something of my own. Now, if I hear an existing song, and I like it...I just leave it at that.

2. A remix can never really be your own. It's like fanart or cosplay: You're ultimately (where OCR is concerned) just giving free promotion to what is, at the end of the day, a consumer product. 

 

Because this can be interpreted a couple ways:

1. I'd simply rather spend the time and energy on awesome art that comes from and through me.

or

1. I'd simply rather spend the time and energy on awesome art that I can monetize directly from me to the extent of what is legal.

Edited by Majeles
Refining

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Majeles said:

I'd like to ask you a question. Would you consider The Animals - The House of the Rising Sun , as The Animals "own" ? Disneys Snow White as their own? Johnny Cash - Hurt, as his own?

No.

It's their own interpretation of it.

4 hours ago, Majeles said:

1. I'd simply rather spend the time and energy on awesome art that comes from and through me.

Exactly. I'd again use the biological child vs adopted analogy.

Jesus...now I know how Dr. Strange felt.

UFLNue1.gif 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do i turn off reply notifications? this thread is a pit of misery and i want to stop getting dinged every time angelcityoutlaw decides to respond aggressively despite not caring.

edit: figured it out =D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SnappleMan said:

If only you guys put this much effort, emotion and dedication into practicing music... B)

OOHHHHHH SNAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPP (leman)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been trying to get back into remixing for the past 5 years, while dodging massive curveballs and being forced into several hard-resets.

But I'm not giving up, and carry on my mission to humbly celebrate under-appreciated VGM in whatever capacity life allows. Cheers. :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now