TheMgnt@aol.com wrote:
And in this case, there are plently of people making remixes, buying them, playing them and owning the rights to the original material from which they were made who hold no such categorical definitions - and this has been the case for a long, long, time. The upshot of this thread is possibly that if familiarity is the sine qua non of your remix un-negotiables, then you should pass. Other than that, it's just so much bandwidth.
Is it really so much to ask that if I buy a 12" claiming to be a remix of a song I like (be it KLF, Art of Noise, etc) that it at least bear some resemblance, or at least a sample of the original track? If I buy a remix of WTIL I would expect to hear that riff in there somewhere, or at least vocal samples from the WR version. Tracks such as this one by Villalolbos (and, really so many others on singles over the last 10+ years) sound like the remixer's own creation with "New Pet Shop Boys Remix!" slapped on it, the only thing in common being *maybe* the bpm. How can this be justified as a remix?
It's a valid discussion. But if you wish to avoid actually answering the questions poised by dismissing the discussion as trivial that's certainly your prerogative.
-paul
By saying 'so much bandwidth', I meant that nobody is going to change anyone's opinion or get new legislation passed which determines what is/isn't a remix. And even if you did, can you imagine what's next? Who determines what is 'enough' content, how many notes constitute a 'riff', what is the legal definition of a hook - whatever. My point is that there is no tribunal to which one has to "justify it as a remix" other than in the court of your wallet. You can discuss anything you like, obviously. jeff