“Everything is a remix.” This is the sentiment expressed in Jordan’s post of the same name. I’m having trouble wrapping my head around this concept for one simple reason. What if something is not a remix? What if it looks like a remix or it sounds like a remix, yet intellectually we know that technically it simply is not a remix?
I want to focus on music here. To me, a remix needs to be based on the original textual or recorded material. If the original material is not partially present or maintained, at least to the point of being recognizable, then it is not a remix. Am I wrong?
What about cover songs where an artist creates an entirely new recording, often vastly different in style, of another artist’s song? This does not involve remixing or including the original audio tracks in any way. In fact, I am hard pressed to think of an example of a cover that includes any portion of the original recording of the song (excluding any posthumous duet involving Elvis, Nat King Cole, or Michael Jackson).
Let me illustrate with an example that I assure you is NOT a remix. Marilyn Manson’s rendition of the Eurythmics “Sweet Dreams”, while musically and lyrically the same (with due credit to the Eurythmics on the album sleeve) has absolutely no remixed relation to the Eurythmics recorded version.
Eurythmics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ9zycElysU&feature=related
Marilyn Manson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tm-1yRZtQg
I feel we need to be more careful of our labeling things as remix. Cover songs can be an art form unto themselves. I’m sure we have all heard countless remixes and samples from Michael Jackson’s “Billy Jean”, like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQWn9U985IM
In conclusion, here is a cover of “Billie Jean” that should be recognized as such and not a remix.
No comments:
Post a Comment