Would you want to release multiple mixes if you could?

[jayf]

Because we can release music online, to one degree or another, we're moving beyond the LP format and the constraints of releases on physical media. So, a creative option that is now accessible to most anyone is releasing multiple mixes of the same song.

Remixes and mashups have been happening for a long enough time that they've become part of the mainstream--at the very least, music fans are being exposed to multiple releases in the form of remixes (Beck's Guero / Guerolito), remasters (Let it Be Naked) and mashups (Beatles 'Love) from big name artists.

So, you have creative say in the mix of a song: do you always want to drive for that "one mix," or do you want to explore different mixes and be able to release multiple versions of the song?

I know, across every possibility, the answer is "it depends." But, in terms of your own recent projects, what do you think?

[inverseroom]

I think that past a certain point it becomes creatively counterproductive to revisit your own stuff. You have to declare it finished and move on. And leave the remixing to posterity.

[thethingwiththestuff]

nope.

and i'm curious, do people really buy this stuff en masse? "love"? "let it be, naked"? i cant imagine these are selling any better than a mid level indie artist. and i get the mashup thing being the new trend, but i've been hearing remixes on mainstream radio since i grew up listening in the early 80's... has it really taken on a new kind of relevance?

really, i'm totally removed from all this stuff, i dont know how its widely viewed. aside from the "give the fans the multi tracks" approach, whats new about remixing?

[inverseroom]

It's the musical form of Choose Your Own Adventure. Fun, but maybe not destined for greatness?

I would rather people I admire write some new songs, really.

[christiannokes]

if somebody was so good as to be able to mix a great song that I loved, and then (even more impressively) be able to beat that to where I was even more excited than the first, then yeah, totally.

So far though, the only remix I have ever liked enough to buy was Bjork's "All is Full of Love". But I didn't even like the first (album) version of it.

The thought of buying an album on line with 2 or mixes of the same song is kind of overwhelming to me though.

[Mark Alan Miller]

Slightly tangental, but "Let It Be Naked" kicks the crap outta the original album, IMO.

"Love" is a bit of a dog-and-pony novelty show (can can practically smell the d'Soleil listening to it) but it does have a couple fun moments.

Of those two, one hit, one miss. But I'll keep that miss around for those couple fun moments.


On topic, I like remixes, but there is such a thing as overkill. I guess there is a time and a place.

Back in '03 I set out to put together a retrospective of my first decade of releases (all the old stuff was out of print, and I wanted to issue something to reintroduce myself back into "the scene" before I released a fully new record. It had been almost a decade since I had put anything out, you see.) So, what I did, instead of simply compiling tracks from the old records and releasing a "best of", I did new mixes of 16 songs (not remixes per se, just fresh mixes as if I was mixing them as an album today.) I coupled those with a second CD of remixes in the more familar sense (ones I had been collecting over the years - unreleased b-sides, essentially, but all offering new persepectives on the songs) and made a huge 28 song package out of them. Sold it for pretty cheap, and it did what I wanted and needed it to.

[Johnny B]

Slightly tangental, but "Let It Be Naked" kicks the crap outta the original album, IMO.

Absolutely, although I still prefer the original, unreleased version. I wish they'd just put that out instead of remixing it.

In any case, I have remixed some of my own stuff. The first was because I wanted to re-do some of the old cassette releases I recorded on CD and the masters were damaged. So, I did them again. And then, while I was at it, I remixed the other stuff, as well. But then, it was mostly for myself and a few friends. It's not it's really selling. Several years ago, I went back in the guitarist/primary songwriter from a band I recorded four years previous. I had done a quickie demo on a four-track cassette machine. We knocked the cassette over to a DA-88 and then did a bunch of overdubs. We added some acoustic guitars and some more electric stuff, including adding on to a solo that petered out on the original. Then, we remixed it with all the extra equipment that we didn't have the first time. It turned out really well, and was a pretty cool way to spend a couple of evenings.

I like remixes if they're interesting. Like, the stereo remix of Pet Sounds is interesting because it gives more prominence to the music than I think the original did, and since it didn't replace the original, I think it's a neat alternative version. On the other hand, stuff like the remix of Who's Next is really a waste of time, since the record sounded fine in the first place and they mostly mixed it to sound like the original anyway. I have the half and half CD and it's really hard to tell the difference. There is a difference, but it's not night and day, like, say the remix of Quadrophenia, which, I have to admit I much prefer to the original.

[effector]

neu! did it, and it was awesome.....otherwise, who wants to keep hearing the same song? maybe it could be a cute gimmick to get people to go to your webpage.

[JGriffin]

In a fit of frustration while making my last CD, I actually re-recorded almost half the album from scratch in completely different arrangements. Just for the hell of it those alternate versions are available as mp3s on the data section of my new disc. If anyone wants to hear them, they're there. If anyone doesn't, they don't have to load those mp3s. I deliberately didn't put them on the audio part of the disc; they're not part of the "album," they're extras.

It's a little strange to have alternate mixes on the audio disc...my copy of Soft Bulletin has alternate mixes of "Race for the Prize" and "Waiting for a Superman' at the end, and well, I don't honestly know if I want to hear them right after hearing the whole album, they're where they are in the albums sequence for a reason presumably, and then there they are again out of sequence. Hm.

The Trent Reznor CD with 5 different remixes of Bowie's "Im Afraid Of Americans" was interesting and educational but not something I'm gonna put in and just let play very often.


So I don't know where I come down on this question, essentially is what I'm saying.

[jayf]

I think that past a certain point it becomes creatively counterproductive to revisit your own stuff. You have to declare it finished and move on. And leave the remixing to posterity.

Definitely. But, if different mixes are producing different arrangements of the song, or even different songs, maybe you don't "revisit" so much as branch into different mixes from early on in the process.

An easy example is making an "unplugged" version just by dropping out everything but the vocals and an acoustic guitar.

***

There's an album someone compiled that is an alternate version of the Beatles' "Help" album--the same track sequence, but each song is a different version. I think it's all alternate takes--maybe a couple mono mixes of stereo songs (or vice versa). Also, there's the original leaked version of Wilco's "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot".

As a listener, it's interesting to hear different versions of songs. So, maybe rather than this question being about "remixes," what about doing different "versions" and releasing them?

[obermorph]

Only if they pay for it. Otherwise I would rather have a local mix engineer in each segment of the country do a mix that sounds right for the ears there.
r

[drumsound]

Ummm...No I wouldn't want to realease multiple mixes.

I'll read the whole thread later...

[ledogboy]

I am definitely not into having a bunch of different mixes out there. Nothing bores me more than endless alternate takes and mixes of a song I know and love. To do the same thing with new material just strikes me as such a lack of artistic vision that no one bothered to decide what the song should sound like.

Somewhat similarly, I can't stand the constant stream of bonus footage, alternate endings and audio commentary that comes with DVD's these days, either.

I guess it's a good way to milk all the money you can out of a project, though!

[jayf]

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. . .

[inverseroom]

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 am going to go buy Let it Be Naked tomorrow though--I can't believe I haven't already gotten around to it. The naked Long and Winding Road on the Anthology is marvelous...