Remixes--Sonic Improvement or Artistic violation?

[Bob Lovely]

Fellow Forum Members.

All of us are familar with remixes of previously released material. I guess, I first became familar with remixes back during the late 70's Disco era when I began purchasing all those 12" singles. Over the past 10 years or so there has been an increasing amount of remixing activity on older material from the 50's, 60's and 70's. Some of these remixes have resulted in first-time stereo mixes of Top 40 hits that were previously only available in their Mono single or LP mixes. Some of the results from these first-time Stereo mixes from the original three-track or four-track masters have been particularly sonically impressive (improved sound stage, instrument definition, frequency response, dynamic range, etc.) without losing the musicality and intent of the original Mono mixes. Other remixes have been crafted on material that had previously been released in Stereo but in a sonically displeasing panned mix. Generally, I have been impressed with a lot of the first-time Stereo mixes created from three-tracks and four-tracks and more umimpressed with remixes completed on previously released stereo releases, with exceptions, duly noted.

How do all of you feel about remixes? Please provide examples, in your opinion, of both well done and poorly done remixes. Are remixes a violation of artistic or production intent even if they improve the sonics of the listening experience without destroying the "feel" from the original mix?

I am interesting in listening to and learning from ALL opinions!

Thank you!

Bob :)

[Claus]

A very good remix is Bob Dylan's SACD release of Blonde By Blonde!

Good remixes are still The Byrds... and of course Beach Boys' stereo remix of Pet Sounds.

Bad remixes: The most Elton John and The Who reissues.

[Rspaight]

My instinct on this is that the original mix of a recording is important, because that' the way people originally heard and responded to the song.

That said, though, I don't necessarily have a problem with remixes as an alternative way to experience records. For example, I find the remix of Quadrophenia more fun to listen to than the original, because it sounds more like the Who. (To me, the original mix sounds more like a muddy prog-rock album.)

I guess the sticking point is that I feel the original version should somehow remain available. The brave new world of massive-storage discs and online music delivery makes that more feasible from an inventory standpoint, though I have little confidence that it's a priority for labels.

Ryan

[Bob Lovely]

Ryan,

You bring up a very important point in that original mixes should always remain available to the music buying public!

Bob

[mcow1]

I agree that the originals should remain available at all times. However as far as improvement or violation could be neither possibly could be both. Is it artistic violation if the artist themselves has a hand in it or does it himself (and screws it up , like those gawd awful Zappa's and I'll assume the new Ozzy's) and says it is an improvement. Is it both if the artist does a good job remastering (Mickey Hart with the Dead stuff)? But what if the original was not good (C,S & N) is it better to have a remix and not the original, maybe so.

[Bob Lovely]

In other words, if it is "good", it is good and if it is "bad, it is bad?

Bob

[-Ben]

The best remix I have ever heard is without a doubt the latest Bob Dylan's Street Legal CD. It went from the worst "sounding" Dylan CD or LP to one of my favorites. The music of course was always first rate.
BC

[Matt]

I think one can only make a judgment on a case by case basis, taking into account 1) how well was the music mixed to begin with and 2) how the remix would be done.

A good example of a bad remix for an album that didn't need it:
Layla. A less than ideal recording, but personally, not enough to justify a remix (which wouldn't really solve the problem anyway).

A good example of a bad remix for an album that did need it:
Rubber Soul, of course. That's the one Beatles album that could use a good stereo mix, but the one they did for the CD is no improvement.

And a good remix:
I agree, Street Legal is a good remix. This may not be the best example because it's so different than the original mix (different goals than, say, remixing the Byrds). The songs are quite good, but the production really sunk it. The remix rectifies this to a certain extent. Still not one of my favorite Dylan albums, but a whole lot more listenable now.

And an album that should be remixed but hasn't been:
The stereo version of Ella Fitzgerald Sings The George Gershwin Songbook. Compare it to the mono version, which sounds so much clearer.

[mcow1]

Originally posted by Bob Lovely
In other words, if it is "good", it is good and if it is "bad, it is bad?

Bob

Not quite, if it's a good remaster that's great but the originals should still be available, and the artist needs to have some input or say in it (would you change a Picasso or make a copy to change but leave the original work). If it's bad and the artist had no say in it then it should never have been done, if it's bad and the artist had a say or control of it (Zappa) who's to contradict them. Back to the Picasso analogy, how many of those canvases are painted over other paintings, who's to say which is better. I have my opinion but the person who (unfortunately, in some cases) counts is the artist. Maybe someday someone will say "boy, the way Zappa remastered these disks sure is better than the original". NAH!!

[Bob Lovely]

And, what if the artist had no say in the original mix and has no legal rights to their recorded material or has passed away? And, what if the remix better displays their musical or artistic talent for posterity?...all things to be considered?

Bob

[mcow1]

Originally posted by Bob Lovely
And, what if the artist had no say in the original mix and has no legal rights to their recorded material or has passed away? And, what if the remix better displays their musical or artistic talent for posterity?...all things to be considered?

Bob
Then IMO the original needs to be available, who am I to say the original sucked just keep the remaster. The sounds one enjoys is a very judgemental thing. Look over at Asylum there are several folks there that prefer the Aqualung 25th over the DCC (go figure), no accounting for personal tastes.

[Bob Lovely]

I believe that the original mixes should always be made available regardless of the quality of remixes available. However, please remember that years ago artists had little to no say in the released mixes of their recorded material.

The DCC Aqualung is one of my favorite CDs in my collection. I do not think that I should ever have to purchase another version...why?, when I have the best version ever done!

Bob :)

[mcow1]

Originally posted by Bob Lovely
I believe that the original mixes should always be made available regardless of the quality of remixes available. However, please remember that years ago artists had little to no say in the released mixes of their recorded material.

The DCC Aqualung is one of my favorite CDs in my collection. I do not think that I should ever have to purchase another version...why?, when I have the best version ever done!

Bob :)

I agree, especially about the Aqualung. Just wish I had more than a cd-r of it. Someday I'll find an affordable one.

[Bob Lovely]

All,

It will be interesting hear other opinions on Remixes from Forum members!

What if Steve Hoffman were "invited" to remix and remaster all of the Beatles catalog?

Would any of us be concerned about the integrity of the original mixes of their magical recordings then?

(A Beatles question should get this thread really going....)

Bob :)

[ArneW]

For the most part, releasing remixes is all about money, IMO. I mean, the folks out there are not as stupid as we are led to believe now and then. If a title thas has been out on a budget CD, a relaunch of the very same music simply has to be sonically different. Different, not better. We have been bashing standard release CDs all over on this forum, but then a great deal of them sounds quite good and can be further improved only by a tiny margin, if at all. I'm hard pressed to tell the original "Frank Sinatra & Antonio Carlos Jobim" CD from its 20-bit re-release. By now I know it was probably my fault - I expected it to be different, not better. And that's the problem: A lot of people will notice that it sounds exactly the same because it takes a damn good system and much better ears to reveal the oh-so-slight differences you can talk yourself into hearing. Once this has been communicated (and sometimes it does quite quickly), the "new edition" won't sell very well, especially when you can still find the previous release for a song. So if you want to sell it, it has to be different. That's how Verve Japan releases have worked for decades: BOOM BOOM BOOM translates into "Oh my god, the bass is so much better than on the standard release." It even works with eliminating something that has always been present on previous editions: "It's dead quiet, no hiss at all!" But then, it's okay. They have to do it. It's their job. I mean, imagine what happened if EMI did an "Endless Summer" re-release in 2025 and the cover read something like "We used Steve Hoffman's remaster from 1993, since we couldn't improve upon his work. We did repackage it nicely and added new liner notes by Lord McCartney though, and a few photographs from the original sessions never available before."

Arne

[Bob Lovely]

Arne,

A very interesting perspective...Certainly, remastering can be a "marketing come-on" at the major labels--buy another one! A question--how you feel about first-time stereo remixes or new stereo mixes?

Bob

[Beagle]

I was thinking about the Free "Best Of", a compilation where the songs were remixed by Bob Clearmountain. I like Bob's stuff, I think he's done some great stuff but "All Right Now" sounds all wrong now.

Also, "History", the best of America, where George Martin remixed all the tunes. I hate this, I like the songs the way they were, they had a certain character, on this they all sound somewhat generic.

[ArneW]

Bob,

I'd love to hear Steve's stereo mix of "Only The Lonely" or anything else that has been recorded directly to a (you name the number of channels)-track tape. But splitting channels or tracks to create some kind of sound stage or stereo separation that wasn't meant to be? To borrow Steve's famous "Mona Lisa" image: We sure have all the digital tools to do a remix. It's a little one-dimensional, this painting, isn't it? I mean, we could make her boobs come slightly out of the canvas. Just like the "Extrude" filter in Photoshop. Wow! Now that's some kind of gal! And she's so pale...doesn't quite fit into the 21th century. Everyone's got a suntan...

Arne

[Bob Lovely]

Arne,

Would you say that you believe in the artistic purity of the original mixes regardless of the potential sonic improvement or is your opinion conditional on a case by case basis? This an important question because of the potential to more thoroughly enjoy a recording or artist because of today's more advanced mixing technology.

Bob

[guy incognito]

Originally posted by Bob Lovely
What if Steve Hoffman were "invited" to remix and remaster all of the Beatles catalog?


http://www.vintagerock.com/hoffman.html

Hoffman: A friend of mine at MCA once told me that anyone who remixes a classic record ought to be shot, and I said, "no, listen to how much louder I can make the drums on this Mama's & Papa's song!" And she rightly argued that the karma of the original mix, no matter how crappy it sounds, is the original mix. Anything else is just jerkin' off. And she's right! Thank you Diana!

I imagine he'd pass on the "remixing" part of the invitation. ;)

[Bob Lovely]

I had recently read the interview, but I know that Steve has crafted new or first-time
stereo mixes of older recorded material as well. My question about the Beatles was a "what if" question at best!

Bob

[Steve Hoffman]

I would be tempted to do a remix of an album that I felt really needed it.

After all, I did it for Nat "King" Cole, Frank Sinatra, Judy Garland and a few others.

But, most things I would leave alone.

The Dylan "Street Legal" album? Haven't heard the remixed version, but the original was one pretty grim.

[-Ben]

Steve,
IMHO, the new remix of Street Legal is fantastic. My copy had a yellow sticker with "newly remixed" on it. (Although I believe is already 2 years old).
BC

[Bob Lovely]

Steve,

If asked by the label, would you remix the Beatles catalog? Or, is there recorded material just too sacred regardless of original mixed quality. For you, where do you draw the line between potential sonic improvement versus historical artist or producer intent?

Thanks for jumping in!

Bob

[Steve Hoffman]

Yeah, any new mix on that album (Street Legal) would be an improvement, that's for sure.