> And in this case, there are plently of people
> making remixes, buying them, playing them and owning the rights to
the
> original material from which they were made who hold no such
categorical
> definitions - and this has been the case for a long, long, time. The
> upshot of this thread is possibly that if familiarity is the sine
qua
> non of your remix un-negotiables, then you should pass. Other than
that,
> it's just so much bandwidth.
Is it really so much to ask that if I buy a 12" claiming to be a remix of a
song I like (be it KLF, Art of Noise, etc) that it at least bear some
resemblance, or at least a sample of the original track? If I buy a remix
of WTIL I would expect to hear that riff in there somewhere, or at least vocal
samples from the WR version. Tracks such as this one by Villalolbos (and,
really so many others on singles over the last 10+ years) sound like the
remixer's own creation with "New Pet Shop Boys Remix!" slapped on it, the only
thing in common being *maybe* the bpm. How can this be justified as a
remix?
It's a valid discussion. But if you wish to avoid actually answering
the questions poised by dismissing the discussion as trivial that's
certainly your prerogative.
-paul