Most of the time when I think of a musical remix, I think of something that is faster than the original with more bass. Something that is louder and in that sense, more fun.
Sometimes when I am studying, I go to this website called Stereomood. On this website, there are a bunch of activities or 'moods' that you can click on and when you click, a playlist will pop up to suit that mood or activity.
I clicked on 'Reading,' and when I did a playlist popped up that included a Jazz version of Britney Spears' Toxic, which you can listen to here. At first as I was reading, I didn't even recognize what I was listening to because the context of the song was so different. Instead of the song being a pop song, it was now turned into a jazz piece.
I almost like this remake of Toxic more than the original because, as you can see in the video, one could probably argue that more talent is demonstrated in terms of musicianship. The idea that remix can combine existing songs but also completely transform them into something that is almost unrecognizable from the original is quite intriguing!
Due to the new context and the completely different categorization of this piece of music, I think that issues of plagiarism and intellectual property are not present because the song is being introduced as something completely different and is now being exposed to a new audience, that is potentially part of 'high-culture.' For me, this piece acts as a way of connecting different audiences and different worlds of music in order to expose new ideas and innovative techniques.
Just in case you don't remember the 'original' version of Toxic by Britney Spears' to compare, here's the video!
Musical remixes are stereotypically known to be ‘much faster’ or ‘heavier’ then the original song. This is a connotation that is attached to remix culture, which is not true. I think you did a great job of addressing the fact that remixes should be seen as their own separate entity, not seen as a ‘remake’. There are many remixes that slow the song down, or use the same beat such as covers songs. I’ve heard both heavy metal versions of Britney Spears and acoustic versions (‘Toxic’ seems to be a popular song to remix into different genres and styles).
ReplyDeleteHere is an example of a ‘remake’ that should be judged in its own entity:
Original T.I ‘Whatever You Like’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQJACVmankY
Cover by Anya Marina
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0BPnJUx_Yw
I really like the two versions of Whatever You Like you posted! Having the cover sung by a female instead of a male is a very interesting concept as well. I think when artists do this when covering a song, some, if not all of the lyrics of the original song can be interpreted differently and this definitely contributes to the remake and endorses a whole new way of thinking of the same lyrical melodies.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting to think about the songs remixed in terms of their playlists. Putting songs in a particular order can change their meanings, such as in a playlist called Reading or Just Woke Up. if you put the same song into both playlists, you may think about it differently depending on the context it is put into.
ReplyDeleteYes, the context changes how I interpret a song. On some of the playlists that the site creates, the same song will be used on both with minor adjustments in order to fit the context. For example, one of John Mayer's songs, "Love Soon," is featured on both the 'Chill' playlist as well as the 'Study' playlist. The only difference is that on the 'Study' playlist, the managers of the site decided that it would stimulate studying more if the lyrics to the song were absent so as not to be as much of a distraction. Do you think that songs should be manipulated in this way in order to play into different contexts and to suit different moods?
ReplyDelete