to "remix" or not to remix?

I understand people's enthusiasm to play with the Bo Rhap / Killer multis, but, please.

A remix is what it says it should dramatically change and restructure one or more of the following elements of the original song:-

Tempo, arrangement, structure, timeline


just taking the multis and muting certain tracks or adding echo to some is NOT remixing... please unless you are adding something worthwhile all you are doing is filling up the www with more needless mp3 files...sorry for the moan. but i have not yet heard ONE single "reworking" from the multis that any fool couldn't manage with Audition/Audacity or Cool edit

If you're not interested, why are you downloading them ? I like certain of them and I suppose others do too...

try reading what i typed again.
i didn't say i wasn't interested. i said that those "remixes" that add nothing are worthless.. the pity is you need to actually download them and listen to them all just to find the rare gem amongst the ordinary...

Usually, there's a small description of the mix so you're able to guess a little what it's gonna be like.
And your description of a remix is only valid for you : like it or not, playing with channels equals remixing (even when it's pointless).

please try and grasp the point of what i was saying and NOT what YOU think i was saying:

what i stated was a cold simple fact:

just taking the multis and muting certain tracks or adding echo to some is NOT remixing... please unless you are adding something worthwhile all you are doing is filling up the www with more needless mp3 files...

i said that those "remixes" that add nothing are worthless

A remix doens't have to be a dramatic change as Brenski said.

It can also be very subtile, for example the vocals slightly louder or the guitars clearer or something like that.

The released Say it's not True was also a remix compared to the free download version. Yet there were no dramatic changes.


When people think of a remix they easily think of a dance remix, but, as I pointed out, it can be a slightly alternate mix as well.

You've got the point FC : remixing has nothing to do with the amount of work put into it.
If you change something in an original song, you can call it a remix, even if it is worthless (wich is something very subjective of course).

Sorry; but I really have to agree with Brenski on this one.

If it is not well thought out, or bring something to the table, it is not worthy of being called a remix.
As for those guys who tinker around with the released multi-tracks, do you seriously think yourselves up there with the Queenzone heavyweights?
If you do, you really flatter yourself.

So what about the Stone Cold Crazy 1991 remix by Michael Wagener, John?

Remixes are bad most of the time (look at the Hollywood Queen mixes or the offical FM ones)! Quality has reallly nothing to do with the technical definition of a remix. Now that there are some multitracks availalble, it's normal that mixes are easier to produce and therefore more people are trying them out.
It's up to them to know if they're worth to be shared or not and it's up to us to download them or not and like them or not !

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mike Label wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So what about the Stone Cold Crazy 1991 remix by Michael Wagener, John?[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but I thought this was a 'Fan mix' forum - as far as I know the Michael Wagener remix was an official professionally produced product.

Two different poles - miles apart.

Accepting all the points raised here, and agreeing with some, I have to ask, would we really want a 'dance mix', or something equally horrific done to one of the most precious pieces of music in the world? Personally, I would hate it. OK, so tinkering with the multi-tracks might not constitute a professional, release worthy 'remix', but I think trying to do anything too radical with Bohemian Rhapsody, would just turn out to be a travesty.

I'm still working my way through the multi-tracks at the moment, bit by bit, when I get a spare hour or two, but making something out of these is going to be EXTREMELY time consuming. Having wished for something like this to work with for ages, now it's here, it seems quite a daunting prospect!

I agree with Lord Fickle. Making a dance mix of something like Bo Rhap for instance would be a definite travesty. Maybe thats why I havent bothered downloading any of the fan mixes that use the multi-tracks uploaded recently.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=FF9900>Mr Mercury</font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Making a dance mix of something like Bo Rhap for instance would be a definite travesty. QUOTE]

Agree!

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lord Fickle wrote: [/QUOTENAME]...so tinkering with the multi-tracks might not constitute a professional, release worthy 'remix'...
I'm still working my way through the multi-tracks... but making something out of these is going to be EXTREMELY time consuming.[/QUOTE]

Yes; but (considering your past track record - and the time and care YOU would put into such a project) this sounds like something I actually look FORWARD to listening to.

But for someone else to exchange one bass track in favour of another (which is not going to be high on my priority list) and are foolish enough to post expecting me to fawn all over it, then they really do deserve all the negative criticism such a 'remix' would heap upon them.

I know that sounds harsh, but art is a very unforgiving mistress - so embrace her at your own peril.