| brENsKi 15.02.2008 04:13 |
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 |
| Freddie May 15.02.2008 05:13 |
If you're not interested, why are you downloading them ? I like certain of them and I suppose others do too... |
| brENsKi 15.02.2008 05:18 |
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... |
| Freddie May 15.02.2008 05:35 |
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). |
| brENsKi 15.02.2008 09:45 |
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 |
| FriedChicken 15.02.2008 10:38 |
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. |
| Freddie May 15.02.2008 12:44 |
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). |
| John S Stuart 15.02.2008 14:58 |
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. |
| Mike Label 15.02.2008 16:59 |
So what about the Stone Cold Crazy 1991 remix by Michael Wagener, John? |
| Freddie May 15.02.2008 17:08 |
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 ! |
| John S Stuart 15.02.2008 19:11 |
Mike Label wrote: So what about the Stone Cold Crazy 1991 remix by Michael Wagener, John?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. |
| Lord Fickle 16.02.2008 07:31 |
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! |
| Mr Mercury 16.02.2008 09:35 |
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. |
| vonkeil 16.02.2008 11:24 |
<font color=FF9900>Mr Mercury</font> wrote: Making a dance mix of something like Bo Rhap for instance would be a definite travesty. QUOTE] |
| John S Stuart 16.02.2008 12:26 |
Lord Fickle wrote: ...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.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. |
| brENsKi 16.02.2008 16:44 |
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 |
| Deacon Fan 19.02.2008 23:14 |
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 (link I guess it's up to the fans to come up with a truly perfect version matching the original mix but without that :) |
| Lord Fickle 20.02.2008 04:54 |
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. |
| brENsKi 20.02.2008 07:40 |
thanks for endorsing my comments unless it adds something new, it's worthless |
| brENsKi 20.02.2008 07:43 |
<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 |
| Lord Fickle 20.02.2008 08:34 |
<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 arseLol!! 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. |
| brENsKi 20.02.2008 12:14 |
so we're saying that "david's testicles" could do with relocating to his scrotal sac? |
| Lord Fickle 20.02.2008 15:35 |
We could indeed be talking bollocks, yes. Lol! |
| Marcos Napier 12.01.2009 17:19 |
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. |
| Marcos Napier 12.01.2009 17:23 |
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. |