Ah, I’m used to the IDM style of remix, which is often a complete reimagining or reinterpretation of the original, often with recognizable elements of the original, but not always
As far as “official definitions” go, here’s what wikipedia says:
“A remix (or reorchestration) is a piece of media which has been altered or contorted from its original state by adding, removing, or changing pieces of the item. A song, piece of artwork, book, video, poem, or photograph can all be remixes. The only characteristic of a remix is that it appropriates and changes other materials to create something new.”
But most importantly logical.
The crucial part is the composition, because that’s what makes a song a song. It’s a remix as long as at least parts of the original composition are recognizable, and it’s not if not. If you change the whole song, composition and instrumentation, it’s an own song because there’s no recognizable connection to the original. But if you’re only changing pieces of it, it’s a remix. The definition is clear and logical. If you take sounds and make your own composition out of it, it’s your own song, too. Imagine a Rock band, they’re always using the same instruments, but the composition of each song is different, so of course they’re creating own songs and not remixes. It’a all about the composition.
Well, everyone has their own definition of what a remix is and isn’t. Your is different than mine and others, and that’s OK - respect to you. There are times when logic can step into the side of subjectivity and that’s OK too.
If I was to remix one of your tracks and I knew ahead of time what your expectations of a remix would be, I would absolutely do everything in my power to adhere to those expectation because I see a remix job as kind of a “service” (I would also be glad to avoid a sermon about what a remix is and isn’t, - I’m teasing).
Definition of remix aside, which is not important to me, what I find strange and fascinating are all the tangents taken to establish said definitions and their purposes, . It’s like when someone asks, “how do you do this?”, and someone replies with, “why do you want to do this?” - typical internet, right?
Anyway, the good thing is that these tangents remind me to ask myself often, “what am I doing today that makes me a statistic?” Well, the irony is that writing this comment is, so I’ll stop here and move on
Not really, just look around and listen to some Remixes. 99% follow the official definition, because it’s absolutely clear. But of course it’s ok for me if there are some others who think differently, even if it doesn’t make any sense. In this thread @slujr is the one who judges “remixes” anyway.
Ok, according to that logic I’ve made a remix of your “Person Across The Room”:
I just changed everything, but it doesn’t matter because everything is a remix, right?
So what do you think?
Imho, a remix has to use parts of the remixed original track, yes, of course.
But then, there seems to be 2 schools.
When Shep Pettibone was remixing songs in the 80’s, he mostly made some re-master, boost some parts, re-EQ, spatialise things, add harmonics, etc… the goal was to make club version over pop songs.
When Aphex Twin remixed the song Ziggy from Nav Katze, from what I heared, he only kept part of the drums, one or two words, and invent something new with it… the goal is to make IDM from a rock song.
Not the same, but both are called remixes.
Anyhow, again, I’m not arguing about what a remix is or isn’t. It’s an interesting discussion because I like to know what people believe and why, i.e. your personal belief of what a remix is and isn’t is valid, interesting, and I respect that 100%. It is also not something I care to argue about because I don’t see the point, just like I don’t see the point of arguing whether a hotdog is a sandwich.
What I was actually getting at is that I do find it weird and intriguing that people have to get into arguments like that, often out of nowhere and uncalled for. Like if I was to ask 3 people to make a painting of my cat, the first makes a photo-realistic painting, the second makes a cartoon, and the third makes an unhinged abstract painting, and then the first painter starts lecturing everyone about how the abstract painting is wrong.
The starting material doesn’t matter, only the result counts. And for being a remix something from the original has to be recognizable. If you take orginal parts, cut them until only single waveforms remain, take these waveforms and create new instruments from scratch out of it, take these new instruments and create a new composition, it’s of course a new composition and not a remix. You’re neither using the same instruments nor anything from the original composition.
What Shep Pettibone was doing is rather called a remaster.
What Aphex Twin was doing is a remix indeed, because he changed pieces of the original.
In any case both are using at least pieces of the original composition.
If you’re providing wood and you ask someone to build a table, but instead you get a rocking horse, something’s wrong indeed.
I took those examples because both are called remixes. But in my personal definition of remixes, I would prefer something between those 2 extremes. Shep Pettibone being too close from the original. Aphex Twin being too far from the original.
Good news is that, with my own perception of what is a remix, all the current Xenoba remixes… are remixes!
on the side, 
- I’m teasing).
