It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 6:00 pm


All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: The case for remixes
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 1:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 11:00 am
Posts: 353
Location: Wirksworth
I know this is something of a touchy subject, with fans having quite different views, but I would like to put the case forward for the issue of remixes (especially the formal albums have been squeezed dry in terms of new release formats).

Of course, my main target is Bryter Layter, but I also think that Pink Moon (my favourite by the way) could also possibly benefit from a remix, admittedly from a different angle. Whereas I'd like to hear Bryter Layter 'unplugged' as it were, I think Pink Moon could benefit from some embellishments. I'd love to see what some ambient experts could do with Pink Moon. I've mentioned Brian Eno in another post, but there are many out there, such as Boards of Canada (who used to be my favs – but I hate the new album ;-) ), that I think could do something really interesting (an aside is that 'Horn' is one of the earliest ambient tracks I've ever heard - another example of how far Nick was ahead of his time).

I wonder if there has ever been any serious discussion concerning remixes by the Estate?

_________________
I have stolen a man
but never a thing of value
I roll up the bamboo blind

Suzuki Masajo


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:37 pm 

Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:36 pm
Posts: 90
Ugh. I'm quite certain Cally and Gabrielle would never entertain such a dreadful idea!


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:31 pm 

Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:09 pm
Posts: 1338
I can see a stripped and unplugged with just Nick, but even that might be a "no-no"--new embellishments by someone other than the artist go against what an artist likely intended...so I'd say no...like adding strings to Dylan's first album...heresy to many. An album is an historical document...I can see remastering a bad mix, but revising for the sake of making it different, because of something we may not like? No.

But then I am a huge fan of Bryter Layter as is...

_________________
"After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music".

-Aldous Huxley


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 10:49 am 

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:10 pm
Posts: 106
Wouldn't this be like painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa ?

These who want to hear undubbed / unplugged versions can do that themselves via various methods.

Only if there was to be a VERY comprehensive box set issued by the estate, containing ALL the unissued material that has been documented, could there be an excuse to include some material stripped of it's backing or remixes.

However the estate seems as reluctant as ever to issue a box set such as this.
.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:07 pm 

Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:09 pm
Posts: 1338
To me it's like remixing Dylan's original Like A Rolling Stone to a rap beat, or adding strings...or even stripping it to just Dylan. It's not what he intended--they should be ashamed, those who do it to it.

:wink:

Nick's work is his & his alone, no matter what anyone else thinks or hopes, or wishes. The Mono Lisa analogy is good...altering an artists work for what ever reason is just wrong. ANY artist's work. He doesn't have to be famous, or even good.

And remuddling doesn't impress me, however well done...once it's been altered it's no longer the artist's work...it's a mash up of others.

The more we get into this subject, which is not an uncommon thing to do to an artist's work, the more I'm against it.

_________________
"After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music".

-Aldous Huxley


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:17 pm 

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:08 pm
Posts: 109
Location: West Yorkshire
Sorry Seran - I'm going to add to the posts above - I can't imagine the estate sanctioning a 'Nick Drake Remixed' album - what would be the point?

As for 'adding embellishments' to Pink Moon - this flies in the face of what Nick himself wanted the album to be.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:30 pm 

Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:09 pm
Posts: 1338
Right, CW. There are MANY covers and tributes that more than satisfy the need to hear Nick done differently

_________________
"After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music".

-Aldous Huxley


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:59 pm 

Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:44 am
Posts: 25
Location: Somerset and Avon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQbMvmU1Elg

Only sayin'.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:41 pm 

Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:53 pm
Posts: 700
Location: Netherlands
Ege Bamyasi wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQbMvmU1Elg

Only sayin'.


"Let It Be ... Naked" would be even better to mention in this case. The difference is of course that one of the musicians himself was involved in the re-release.
"Bryter Layter...Bare"? No, thanks, although I can imagine the wish for it.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 8:46 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 11:00 am
Posts: 353
Location: Wirksworth
Interesting replies - from many who have no problem listening to alternative versions of Nick's songs by other artists! To draw an analogy with the Mona Lisa didn't strike me as particularly relevant - if so, every version of Nick's music should exactly how it was originally recorded (and clearly there is a significant difference between the two mediums). Cleary Boyd didn't see things as being quite so sacred with the Way to Blue concerts. Times change, the world moves on. We all want Nick to be appreciated by more people (well I do - maybe some of you don't!) and particularly BL lags behind the other two - there's a simple reason for that IMHO. Brilliant songs - over-cooked. All a remix is just an alternative version by a producer/artist - what's the difference?

_________________
I have stolen a man
but never a thing of value
I roll up the bamboo blind

Suzuki Masajo


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:35 pm 

Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:23 pm
Posts: 752
Location: United Kingdom
I think the difference with music is that you have two distinct entities - the piece of music (in this case the song) and the performance.

Artists ofter record a song more than once and many will play the song hundreds of times at a gig with sublte (or not so subtle) differences. When they record that song they choose a fixed interpretation they want to represent the song.

Other artists might take the song and record it in any number of ways. That's re-interpretation. I think maybe the Mona Lisa analogy doesn't quite work because you're forever changing the only interpretation of something that exists.

What's being suggested here is that someone taks the artist's recording and re-interprets it with no input from the artist.

In some instances there's nothing wrong with this - sampling (especially when the sample forms a major part of the new track) is essentially the same thing. However, when an artist has recorded and issued a song as they want it to be then I tend to think that artist (or in Nick's case the estate, who represent Nick now he'd dead) have the right to not want that tampered with.

Anyone can cover a song and I don't think anyone here would suggest they can't (although we might not necessarily like the result). A song is a text that's open to interpretation. The recording, however, is the interpretation.

There's no right answer, only personal opinion. If a Bryter Layter 'naked' was issued I'd probably buy it out of curiosity (almost like looking at an artists's sketchbook) but I think it's perfect as it is.

The final say is down to the estate who, I'd imagine, won't want to go down this route. That's their right.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:36 pm 

Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:09 pm
Posts: 1338
Seran wrote:
Interesting replies - from many who have no problem listening to alternative versions of Nick's songs by other artists! To draw an analogy with the Mona Lisa didn't strike me as particularly relevant - if so, every version of Nick's music should exactly how it was originally recorded (and clearly there is a significant difference between the two mediums). Cleary Boyd didn't see things as being quite so sacred with the Way to Blue concerts. Times change, the world moves on. We all want Nick to be appreciated by more people (well I do - maybe some of you don't!) and particularly BL lags behind the other two - there's a simple reason for that IMHO. Brilliant songs - over-cooked. All a remix is just an alternative version by a producer/artist - what's the difference?
Good covers & tributes are good, open to interpretations and welcome, just like Emmylou covering For No One by the Beatles--that's fine and always wonderful--artists have always covered each other and that is a good thing...it's taking the actual artist's original recordings and changing them that we object to...when the actual originals that are as perfect as Nick's and muddling with them--why bother--they do not honor the artist's original work when it is remixed, except by the original author. Tribute shows and albums are fine and honor the artist.

_________________
"After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music".

-Aldous Huxley


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 2:01 pm 

Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:09 pm
Posts: 1338
Altering an artist's protected work, whether it is on canvas, in film or on "vinyl", is always a sacred right that belongs to the creator alone--I'm talking the actual painted, filmed or recorded ART....and in this case Nick's Estate retains that right. The Mono Lisa analogy by that standard is a good one.

I am an artist (the kind that puts it on canvas) so I relate vey closely to inherent protected (copy)rights by virtue of merely creating the "ART".

An idea can't be copyrighted, but a painting, recording or film IS, from the moment it is created--by international law. So if Nick's estate doesn't want his work altered that is their right.

But, you are right, Matt, about being able to cover a musician's work...it's always done and is as much a part of music's evolution as the original itself. With the Artist's permission, the right to cover their song is something "we" have enjoyed for centuries.

Although I've never heard anyone cover Nick as well as the original, many times the covered interpretations become the standard definitive version, even over the original.

_________________
"After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music".

-Aldous Huxley


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 5:44 pm 

Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 7:42 pm
Posts: 49
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVOeyXDT1DM You mean something like this?
There's a gent on You tube,SaturdaySon,who has a few of these remixes.Not how I intended Nick's music to sound.I'm sure if Nick wanted his songs to sound this way,he would have recorded them 'unplugged'


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 5:47 pm 

Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 7:42 pm
Posts: 49
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV3qW6si8Ls.What about this one.I think it has something to do with surround sound and the centre channel.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Moderator: Matt (admin) Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Peter Rice and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Theme created StylerBB.net