MOTUnation.com

If this post is off topic please feel free to move it. Over the last couple of years, I have been listening to a lot of "Remixes". The modern remix is far evolved from what I would call a remix in my early days of audio. It has become more of what I would refer to as a "musique concrete" style of composing, while remaining firmly established in the dance hall traditions. Kutiman and Pretty Lights come to mind.

I hear pieces that are no longer remixes, but rather entire compositions formed from found material: samples, loops, effects, etc. This is entirely foreign to the way that I have always worked. I've never worked with anyone who has done this. I've never been a DJ. I've always built tracks from original performances. It seems to me the organizational skill to keep track of all the tempi, keys, sounds, loop lengths, etc. is a daunting task. How is it all done? Is there a resource? Or is it like looking at a magnificently complex piece of graffiti and just coming to the conclusion that this is a self-taught art?

I know there are mentors and influences. What I am interested in are techniques.

It is an equivalent to throwing darts and then claiming that you designed the board. You might also think of it as one step below the art of mixing in a recording studio and then claiming the resulting mixed music/production is your creation. It isn't; no more than a pianist playing Beethoven can lay claim to the Moonlight Sonata as his own composition because he played the piece out of order. Even that would approach originality more than the remixing does. At least the pianist took the time to learn to play the piano and execute to music for him/herself.

On a dance floor as a DJ it is a function - a playback machine. As an artistic expression, it is fraud, IMO. In many cases, it is also illegal unless advance permission from the copyright owner grants permission to use their material.

Thanks for the reply, MLC. Until recently I would have agreed with you 100%, but I have come to admire the extraordinary skill that some of these dart throwers possess. A more apt analogy would be that the pattern the darts formed on the dartboard created a mosaic portrait of Abraham Lincoln. Surely there is some artistic merit in this, legal problems notwithstanding. Even more "mainstream" groups employ these techniques. There are drum loops in Massive Attack's "Teardrop" that are clearly sampled. I would not regard their music as fraudulent. How could this song make its way through armies of entertainment and copyright lawyers to end up on Fox's "House, M.D" once a week? Could anyone identify the source of the drum loops even if they tried?

The use of sampled loops has become so prevalent that vinyl noise is being added to mixes to give the impression of samples, even when they are not. This is one technique I can identify.

I am not disputing the skill involved at all. It can be amazing. But I wouldn't condone a beautiful sculpture made from the use of once live babies, sacrificed for the sake of art. For many, their works are their children and, IMO, should be treated with the same respect. I'm just sayin'...

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:I am not disputing the skill involved at all. It can be amazing. But I wouldn't condone a beautiful sculpture made from the use of once live babies, sacrificed for the sake of art. For many, their works are their children and, IMO, should be treated with the same respect. I'm just sayin'... :)

Wow… You just compared sampling a record to killing babies. I'm afraid of such extremism.

1nput0utput wrote:

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:I am not disputing the skill involved at all. It can be amazing. But I wouldn't condone a beautiful sculpture made from the use of once live babies, sacrificed for the sake of art. For many, their works are their children and, IMO, should be treated with the same respect. I'm just sayin'...

Wow… You just compared sampling a record to killing babies. I'm afraid of such extremism.

You can see it that way if you wish. What I actually did was compare creating music to having a child. This is not a new concept - for some. Maybe it's time to change your Rx.

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:It is an equivalent to throwing darts and then claiming that you designed the board. You might also think of it as one step below the art of mixing in a recording studio and then claiming the resulting mixed music/production is your creation. It isn't; no more than a pianist playing Beethoven can lay claim to the Moonlight Sonata as his own composition because he played the piece out of order. Even that would approach originality more than the remixing does. At least the pianist took the time to learn to play the piano and execute to music for him/herself.

On a dance floor as a DJ it is a function - a playback machine. As an artistic expression, it is fraud, IMO. In many cases, it is also illegal unless advance permission from the copyright owner grants permission to use their material.

I agree to an extent, Mike. Although I think of it more similar to making a collage out of images cut from magazines. There can be an art to it, but since it borrows heavily on the hard work of others, it's hardly something, the entirety of, that any one person should take particular credit for.

I'm a film editor by trade. I take other people's acting, photography, direction, sound and designs and create a montage or collage of all those elements. There's definitely an art to editing. And the art of editing can be evaluated apart and distinct from the acting, etc. I suppose the same could be said for remixing, but the general public isn't usually educated enough to make the distinction. I've rarely ever heard a non-film person comment on the editing of a movie, unless it was extremely fast, annoying or obtrusive.

There's a saying that "great editing is invisible" It's not something that people should notice. If I'd never heard of James Brown, Aerosmith or Billy Cobham, I might in my state of ignorance, give undue credit to the Remixers who've co-opted the original art. But, as you say, any Remixer who doesn't give proper due to the people whose work he's used as material is indeed a fraud and a thief.

Hi Jim,

There is certainly a difference in "collaborating" as you do as an editor and I do as a composer, and "borrowing" as mix artists do. Done with permission it's fine. Done w/o it's stealing.

BTW, probably 95% of all the work I've ever done has been collaboartive. I'm a big fan

My wrong currency 2 pence..

Recently, well a couple of years ago, I discovered the power of remixing my own material and it's been a real revelation. At best I tend to not care for the 'art' of remixing and at worst it makes me furious in a way no other music can! But I also have to admit - and it's taken me a while - I think there is undeniable power in the technique and the whole attitude associated with remixing ie 'nothing should be sacred' and 'if it works use it'.

The problem is then not so much remixing but people applying that kind of ruthless/ clinical attitude to other people's music - often classics - and intentionally making real nasty lowest-common-denominator music with it.

I grew up in bands where to write music we'd use improvisation and rehearsals/ solo playing/ tape walkman/ ordinary tape deck to record ideas - that's about it..... there where no DAWs and we didn't have access to a studio most of the time. I'm actually so glad we had to write that way back then ... but I realized a while back that now in the 21C I was not making full use of DP et all in the creation stages of my own music (except practical things like making up for my lack of prowess on keyboard etc). IOW until a composition was pretty well formed I was still treating DP essentially like a tape deck or not using it at all (which is still a good way to write in my opinion)... but when I started pillaging a hard drive full of unfinished 'going nowhere' projects (some great ideas some not so) and then -what can only be described as- remixing it all over the shop I suddenly ended up with some amazing new material that I would never in a million years have conceived either in my imagination or by happy accident through improvisation.

The key for me was that remix attitude: to treat all my precious (in some cases blood ,sweat and tears) ideas like someone else's work and forget all my original intentions for all the parts and even whole pieces (or sections of) and to really get that remixer's head where you just want to keep 'throwing darts' and wait for those bullseyes (so to speak).

The beauty of remixing the Spikey Horse way is of course you still end up with 100% all original work composed by you .... and you can rerecord it all and don't have to rely on dodgy time/ pitch shifts and edits and so on.

The other beauty is (as a solo composer) I found a lot of my 'remixed' music got more of those interesting abrasive qualities, that frisson, more typical of bands/ collaborations where you might have two clearly different musical intentions (from two different people) but which somehow just worked together, but an unusual way. When writing 'normally' I tend unavoidably to think of what fits musically ....and even parts that are written to 'go against' is still a kind of fitting Remixing can introduce some wonderful strangeness - exoticness - to your music!

We all work differently but if like me you write a lot of riffs, rhythms, bass lines, short sections, textures that end up homeless and improvise a whole lot then seriously remixing it like it wasn't your own work can be a very worthwhile experiment IMHO.

So back to my original question: How's it all done? (How does one go about organizing tempi and tunings, etc.).

Hey guys, good conversation. Spikey, your method of remixing your own material is indeed very 21C, as you put it, and seems to me a perfectly acceptable and creative way to manage your own assets. I think where Mike and I are on common ground is due to our indignation at taking credit for other people's work.

I heard a story on NPR where they interviewed a guy (not Billy Cobham) who took credit for the music for a Victoria's Secret TV spot. The guy never mentioned that the (very recognizable, to me) loop that was the thematic riff for the score was sampled from Cobham's Spectrum album. Outrageous!

Cuttime, you may find some better leads on the process if you were to find a forum dedicated to Acid, as my understanding is that the original program (which is now a fully featured DAW), was designed for "remixing" from the beginning. Sorry that we derailed your thread, as your topic title clearly was aimed at "Remix Gurus." I certainly wouldn't make that claim.

I hope you guys don't misunderstand me. I have no problem with people using my music for whatever they want and even broadcasting and distributing it.

My only objection is when I can't find them to serve the Federal Infringement action against them! A 25 second infringement pays a lot more than the same 25 seconds as background on cable.

But I wouldn't condone a beautiful sculpture made from the use of once live babies, sacrificed for the sake of art.

I wonder if George Martin felt justified in remixing the Beatles because he helped deliver the babies.

All though not my thing; I have Acid Pro and it is easy to make remix music with it, you just drag and drop, copy, paste and so on.
You put your loops in a folder by the kind they are. Loops get meta data that tells the program what tempo and key it is, when you drop the loop into a track it is adjusted to the tempo and key of the song. There is a loop editor to create loops and add the meta data, OSX has one in it and you will find it in Aplications. I too made some of my loops from my playing. I mostly think of Acid as a toy just to play with, it is scarry how easy it is to put together a song.
Garage band does simular things.
I think Jim put it well; remix is like a collage from other peoples pictures.

some remix's out that are OK and there are remix's that are Amazing!, they are inspired and give you a totally different window into the music.
check out NIN remix ,these are brilliant!
it will give you an idea how much you can change a song,(2 or 3 different remix's of the same songs)example: Bill Laswell (his use of distortion is so cool)as well as many other seasoned pro's take turns at giving an entirely new look at a song,this is not simply cutting and pasting.
there are many artists out there who want to hear another interpretation of their music, a good remix can feel like an entirely new song and give an entirely different perspective to the song.