Would you want to release multiple mixes if you could?

joeysimms · Post by **joeysimms** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:59 pm

jayf wrote:I'm interested / surprised that everyone seems so negative about releasing multiple versions / multiple mixes.

I guess I expected to hear that some people would be excited by the opportunity to go different directions (arrangements, dynamics, etc.) with the same song.

I agree that alternate mix releases can be motivated by either novelty or $$. But, I don't see why they couldn't be more than that--why there couldn't be valid and interesting artistic reasons to do multiple mixes. . .

Two things:

1. I think it'd be cool to, say, put mono mixes and stereo mixes on the cd, if only because I like doing that.

2. it's cool to take thematic/film score stuff and do different takes/versions on it, ala the instrumental version of goldfinger, and that the theme from that song happens throughout the soundtrack, but..

3. remix albums just bug me. i do not want to hear Air remixing a Beck song that wasn't that special to begin with, nor do i want to hear hip-hop mixes using old Sarah vaughn type singers.. Double-ditto with horrid shit like the 'bombay the hard way' stuff - yechhh.

jayf · Post by **jayf** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:03 pm

inverseroom wrote:The artistic-achievement level of my material does not justify the release of multiple versions, and neither does 99.999% of all music ever written. Time to move on, change and grow, write better songs.

I think 98.6% of all music ever written has been "released" in multiple versions, e.g., before there were records.

But, time is an interesting way to think about it: is it an artistically productive use of one's time creating multiple variants of a single idea vs creating many singular works for many ideas?

...mumbles about traditional music cultures, Andy Warhol, Charles Ives...

So, ok, no one seems be very excited about using their time to create multiple versions.

joeysimms · Post by **joeysimms** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:26 pm

Multiple versions, maybe. Multiple mixes of the exact same material, maybe not!

Mark Alan Miller · Post by **Mark Alan Miller** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:32 pm

Wire's "Snakedrill" comes to mind as a sucessful implementation... of multiple versions, but not multiple mixes, per se.

modernkicks · Post by **modernkicks** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:26 pm

I have to say, I'm usually pretty "all for" doing something different/weird. But, I have to agree that this idea sounds kinda "what's the point?" Do one GREAT mix, and move on...write better songs, etc. I totally agree with that philosophy.

Now, let's say your band's become a legendary band, and it's ten or more years since the release of your big album that catapulted you to this status. If there ARE ways to remix, JUST to show some hidden elements in the song or something...then, yeah...maybe.
But, I'd much prefer a total re-recording, anyday.

Mark Alan Miller · Post by **Mark Alan Miller** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:53 am

My point with my 'new mizes' on cd1 and unreleased extended/manipulated remixes on cd2 for my anthology/'best-of' was so I wouldn't be re-releasing anything exactly as it was before. So that the few folks who might have one or more of my older albums would at lease be getting nothing exactly like they paid for before. I am not saying that I'm 'legendary' in any way, but I think it was a worthwhile endeavor - not just a navel-gazing self-absorbed waste of time.

Johnny B · Post by **Johnny B** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:26 pm

jayf wrote: I think 98.6% of all music ever written has been "released" in multiple versions, e.g., before there were records.

Well, yes, but that's different than just releasing multiple mixes. That's different groups of people recording the same material at different times. And there certainly is artistic merit to that. Or there can be, at least.

It can be interesting to hear an artist re-interpret someone else's songs. Or even occasionally to hear an artist re-interpret his or her own song. Far too often, though, the latter ends up like that awful Clapton unplugged version of "Layla." On the other hand, Laurel Aitken's mid-1990s re-recording of a bunch of his 1960s and 70s tracks with a hot backing band highlighted not only how great those songs are, but how great of a performer he still was in his 60s.

sammyp · Post by **sammyp** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:35 pm

My personal opinion; i think upon the first release of a new song, the band, artist, producer, mix eng etc, should strive to present the song in one form only - the best mix and syle/sound for the song their team can come up with. Try to find what is "the perfect approach" for a given tune.

Then after the public have chewed on that for a while, present some remix options.

river · Post by **river** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:43 am

I'm actually wading into this scenario right now, producing an artist I've worked with before, and we're releasing two EP's of the same songs in entirely different production styles, one will be an organic pop/rock version with real players and maybe a small scrap of sampled strings, the other a more loop based techno pop feel. It will be interesting to see what the net result is.

ashcat_lt · Post by **ashcat_lt** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:43 pm

I've always considered the possiblities of having several different version of a recording geared toward different listening environments.

There could be the "consumer" version meant to translate as well as possible to as many different systems as possible. This is the way most projects are mixed and mastered.

Then you could have the "hi-fi stereo" version. With this one we assume our listeners have audiophile quality or pro gear, are sitting in the sweetspot, have a relatively quiet and acoustically sound room. With this one you can have a wider dynamic range. I'd imagine you could do quite different things with EQ. You could also get away with some tricks like using phase relationships to achieve greater soundsource localization and a bigger soundstage since you wouldn't be worried about mono compatibility and related issues.

Of course, you also need the 5.1 (or whatever you prefer) surround mix. This one gives a whole new set of options. One idea I had with this one was to offer "bonus material" additional instruments or sounds in the rear speakers that wouldn't fit well into the stereo mix.

Anybody ever done something like this?

Seems to me that from a business perspective it would have been cost prohibitive in the era of physical distribution media, but does internet distribution make it a more viable option?

floid · Post by **floid** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:48 am

i had a project dreamed up a few years back, where i'd written two different sets of music for the same batch of song lyrics - we were gonna cut a double groove vinyl so that you'd never know which version you were fixing to hear...
looking back, it's probably a good thing none of that stuff ever made it past the practice tape phase

Mark Alan Miller · Post by **Mark Alan Miller** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:16 am

floid wrote:i had a project dreamed up a few years back, where i'd written two different sets of music for the same batch of song lyrics - we were gonna cut a double groove vinyl so that you'd never know which version you were fixing to hear...
looking back, it's probably a good thing none of that stuff ever made it past the practice tape phase

A terrific idea, though!

ashcat_lt · Post by **ashcat_lt** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:24 pm

i've been threatening to release the "Blue Flower" boxed set - every recording ever of Lorenzo's Tractor playing the Opal song "blue flower". Not sure how many disks that'll take...

Message Board

Would you want to release multiple mixes if you could?

Re: Would you want to release multiple mixes if you could?

Who is online