to "remix" or not to remix?

B

brENsKi 16 February 2008 16:44 · Member since June 2003

Lord Fickle wrote:

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!

which was my origninal point exactly. not trying to cow-tow to you, but you are amongst the recognised "QZ experts" in teh remixing field....and you say this is a daunting task and extremely time consuming...yet these "new gen QZ remixers" freshly acquired with multitracks are chucking out "boh rhap remixes" like wedding confetti in ten minutes.....i'm sick of crap that adds nothing

D

Deacon Fan 19 February 2008 23:14 · Member since June 2006

No point in arguing this really. The tracks are there and people can have their fun if they wish. And frankly I haven't seen that many mixes from these yet. I expected a constant stream.

In the case of Bohemian Rhapsody though, since the original 2 channel master includes that little glitch on the drums (http://www.brianmay.com/experts/exp04.html) I guess it's up to the fans to come up with a truly perfect version matching the original mix but without that :)

L

Lord Fickle 20 February 2008 04:54 · Member since August 2004

To be honest, I'm struggling to find the time to go through the 24 tracks, just to hear what's there, let alone renaming them so as to make some sort of sense. Hopefully, people are taking their time working with these, and something worthwhile will come of them. Personally, I'm in some doubt as to what can actually be done to add to the original. To me, using alternative vocal tracks, out-takes, etc, would surely just be producing an inferior version, as there's nothing 'extra' as such in the 24 tracks. If the rumoured to exist, additional 3 minutes of operatic section, or a completely different guitar solo, were there, it would have been a different story.

B

brENsKi 20 February 2008 07:40 · Member since June 2003

thanks for endorsing my comments

unless it adds something new, it's worthless

B

brENsKi 20 February 2008 07:43 · Member since June 2003

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:
thanks for endorsing my comments

unless it adds something new, it's worthless

why mess with something unless the change is going to make a worthwhile change

the dozen or so "remixes" so far, have amounted to little more than taking the "statue of david"
and maybe enlarging a finger or two and taking one of his testicles and hiding it up his arse

L

Lord Fickle 20 February 2008 08:34 · Member since August 2004

<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:
the dozen or so "remixes" so far, have amounted to little more than taking the "statue of david"
and maybe enlarging a finger or two and taking one of his testicles and hiding it up his arse

Lol!!

There have been one or two bits I have caught onto, while listening to some of the tracks, particularly Freddie's 'solo' vocals during the 'Is this the real life' intro section. There's one track where he hits a perfect note, with perfect vibrato on the word 'blows', and that would be nice to integrate with the full version, but changing one word, doesn't really constitute what I would call anything worthwhile.

B

brENsKi 20 February 2008 12:14 · Member since June 2003

so we're saying that "david's testicles" could do with relocating to his scrotal sac?

L

Lord Fickle 20 February 2008 15:35 · Member since August 2004

We could indeed be talking bollocks, yes. Lol!

M

Marcos Napier 12 January 2009 17:19 · Member since July 2001

Missed this, and stopped reading at some part of the posts. But...

Lord Fickle wrote:
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.

Based on this...

Technically or "semantically", what is a (re)mix? "Something that was mixed again", I guess. How is it done? Adding tracks that weren't originally in the released product but were in the original masters (or not), removing some stuff entirely or fixing their levels in the overall mix (therefore tweaking the levels is remixing), adding effects... all this constitutes a remix. Of course just adding an echo or a reverb to the final mix as it was isn't a remix. Adding a dance beat on top of some songs... well it might be even if you don't do anything to the original base tracks, as it can be considered some kind of "arrangement". The more something is changed, the more it can be said it was "remixed" too.

Also, saying it is a "reconstruction" of a song can be said of a remix, although it's a slightly different beast I think, but they're still cousins. It can be achieved by just a few level tweaks and added effects here and there, other times it's needed to redo everything from scratch using a few things only from the originals. Not all these "reconstructions" sound as good as the originals, but some are even better than them sometimes.

M

Marcos Napier 12 January 2009 17:23 · Member since July 2001

But!...

unless it adds something new, it's worthless

Most of the time, yes it is. Some songs don't deserve to be "rebuilt", not everyone is able to perfect what was already perfect. Queen (and other traditional rock stuff) shouldn't be really touched and turned into house music, IMHO.

Posts in chronological order