| |
Are
remixers geniuses, hacks, avant-gardists,
pop-reproducers, or the logical
conclusion of the capitalist system?
Find out what one musician thinks
about the world of professional
remixing. |
Let's
get one thing straight right from the
start—I'm a musician. I am not
some stupid sequencing geek either,
I can apply fingers to instrument and
produce music in real time; hell, I
can play four instruments and even improvise
on all of them. Maybe by knowing this
about me it will shed some light on
to my personal views on the world of
remixing because I have a feeling that
I'm going to be very unpopular in certain
circles because of my belief. In fact,
I'm predicting a lot of indirect whining
and cliched comparisons to being a Nazi
from some people not affiliated with
this board.
Over
the last ten years a new phenomenon
has swept into the music world riding
the latest crop of fancy samplers and
computer software—remixing. For
those of you that don't know what a
remix is it is simply taking an established
song and changing or adding elements
to it to offer a different perspective
on a piece of music. Essentially, a
remix shows what a song could
have been like if taken from a different
angle.
The
way I see it there are three basic types
of remixes:
1.)
Artist Remix: the artist that wrote
and/or recorded the song wants to remix
the song. Sometimes this is done to
shorten the song to meet radio or Mtv
formats in order to get more airplay.
Sometimes it is done so the artist can
re-interpret and re-invent their own
art. Occasionally this turns out a real
gem and sometimes it doesn't.
2.)
Artist Approved Remix: this is where
the artist (or their label) decides
that they want to market a song to a
different audience—such as taking
a Top 40 hit and turning it into a dance
single—by calling in a third party
remixer. Other times it is used to try
to establish "indie credibility"
such as Madonna making ample use of
remixers like Maas on her material.
Normally this caper is done only for
the purpose of opening new markets,
winning new fans, and overall making
more money for the label and the artist.
3.)
Independent Remixers: this is a
remix done by a professional remixer
or team of remixers, with or WITHOUT
approval from the controlling artist
or label. Bands like Rabbit in the Moon
have based 90% of their career on this
type of music. Quite often the song
is mangled beyond recognition other
than a few vocal snippets here and there,
maybe a few hooks will remain in place.
Sometimes the remixes are far less invasive
and leave most of the song intact other
than an added TB-303 bassline to be
trendy (when that was trendy).
There
are three general types of remixes:
artist remixes, artist approved
and independent remixers.
|
|
Now
what to think of these remixes? Artists
remixing their songs down to fit into
a certain length of time to garner more
airplay is an acceptable move in most
cases. I can live with that. Artists
re-interpreting their own work can be
quite interesting when done correctly,
but oftentimes it is NOT at all. (Take
NIN's remixes on the Fixed EP...
just terrible and unlistenable. Besides,
how many version of "Head Like
a Hole" does the world need? I
thought he got it right the first time.)
Now
let's take the artist approved remix.
Clearly a commercial move, probably
a sell-out move; although to be honest
this type of remix is normally only
done by Top 40 artists anyways and most
of them are admittedly sold out. I don't
have too much of a problem with this
because chances are I'll never hear
the original song in the first place,
much less the remix, and these savvy
popstars aren't fooling anyone by attempting
to establish indie cred.
This
leaves us with the final type of remix
"artist", the professional
remixer.
Myself
I cannot stand professional remixers
that expect... no demand... to be treated
with the same reverence and respect
as an actual musician. Face it, remixers
are fucking posers. They can't play
an instrument, instead they recycle
the music of someone else and give it
their own "spin." The thing
that REALLY pisses me off is
the fact that remixers try to act like
they have some sort of talent and should
be treated with respect for what they
do.
| |
Those
that can—do; those that cannot
remix.
|
There
is an old adage that needs to be appended
regarding music:
"Those
that can—do; those that cannot
remix."
Why
a remix artist expect equal treatment
as a musician—someone that performs
the very task that they are unable to,
namely creating original music—is
beyond me. Why people give them that
respect is utterly beyond my comprehension,
although I suspect it may be because
they themselves, like the artists, are
incapable of creation and originality
and thus DESPISE it in others. Of course,
I'm sure they will have some post-modern
or communist theories to explain why
and how things become "hyperreal"
when they are "replicated"
and that "there is no such thing
as original ideas" or that the
"hypercommercialism of the capitalist
structure of the military-industry complex
has annihilated originality." Regardless
of the flowery and obfuscating reasons
they concoct they are unable to change
the reality that remixers are not
musicians nor should they be treated
as such. How anyone can treat their
'musical output' as creative is just
a bad, ludicrous joke... and it appears
to be a highly lucriative one as well.
Remixers
are the bottom feeders of the
music world and should be regarded
as such by all true lovers of
music.
|
|
What
I want to know is how do these remixers,
regardless of what or how they do it,
consider themselves superior to a cover
or tribute band? All three of these
types of pseudo-musicians share one
thing in common—without the direct
input and replication of ANOTHER
ARTIST'S work they are unable to
function. They are true intellectual
and artistic second handers through
and through. To take things one step
further they are all dependent upon
another artist's marketable name
and work in order to function. Nobody
gave a shit about Timo Maas until he
remixed Madonna; whether or not the
artist approved (and she sought him
out for the remix) of being parasited
by a remix artist nothing can change
the fact that they are the total epitome
of an opportunistic sell out.
Can
you think
of a greater expression of self-proclaimed
bankruptcy than the remixer? Someone
that depends utterly on the work of
others as well as their reputations
in order to peddle their own career?
Think
of this, for those of you that worship
remixers and their stolen pap: would
you like a cover band as much as you
like your current 'flavor of the week'
trendy remixer? Would you consider a
tribute band to be as particularly "genius?
as DJ MIRRORBOI?" Doesn't it fill
you with disgust that these people want
recognition not for what they have created,
but what someone else has created and
tampered with? If a major corporation
or government did it you'd scream your
college educated and pretentious asses
off and you know it.
Contrary
to what people say, and what the phenomenon
of remixing says, about our culture
there still are new ideas out there
waiting for MUSICIANS to discover
them. After all, without real musicians
there would be nothing for the remixers
to rip off... right?
-James Meeker
