A remix is like a musical fisking
Phil Dennison points to the news that producer Danger Mouse is planning to lay vocals from Jay-Z's "The Black Album" over the Beatles' "The White Album" to create "The Gray Album." Very reasonably, he asks, "Does anyone think that this will make either of these recordings objectively better? Has the world of commercial hip-hop become so creatively bankrupt and moribund that this is considered groundbreaking, or something? . . . This is creativity?"
Fair point. But while I agree that remixes tend to be bland and flabby affairs that add little of merit to the original, I think Phil is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
For example, the Flaming Lips recently remixed Kylie Minogue's "Can't Get You Out Of My Head," slowing down the original dance pap to a crawl, underlining an obsessive creepiness almost totally absent from the original except to the imaginative listener. Although this is only one example out of a mediocre ten thousand, it's great and revelatory stuff within the context of pop music.
Also, Phil conflates "remixes" with the more recent phenomenon of "vs. recordings." Although long-established in the reggae world (check out King Tubby vs. Sly & Robbie sometime-- magic!), where remixes are common, this is new to the pop world. Dropping Jay-Z onto a Beatles cut is a prime example of this practice.
I own a bootleg "vs." recording that truly does amplify the originals-- the vocals from Eminem's "Without Me" over the music bed from Led Zeppelin's instrumental, "The Crunge." Beyond just being funny or novel, Eminem's phrasing and particular flow, when slowed down to LZ's tempo, happen to complement and groove on the Zep track perfectly. I find the results mind-alteringly enjoyable.
Though I doubt the Jay-Z and Beatles matchup will rise to this level, I'm actually anxious to hear what Jay-Z's laconic, Joe-Frazier-like style will do over top of Across the Universe.
My point, I guess, is that the good name of the remix has been dragged so thoroughly through the mud that it's difficult to see the good in it. But the revolution is over: the studio is now a musical instrument in its own right, as are recordings. Not everyone has to agree that that way lies genius; reasonable people may differ. But I happen to think so, and if you want evidence, I urge you to get a copy of the Eminem/Led Zep and the Flaming Lips/Kylie Minogue as proof.
on
| § 2
§ 2 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Where would syncing Floyd's
Where would syncing Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon to the movie Wizard of Oz fit into all of this?
How long an answer do you
How long an answer do you want?
Technically, Dark Side of the Moon/Oz falls into a different category, more in line with aleatoric music (a la John Cage, Harry Partch), found/split sound (ditto, and Charles Ives), or "xenocrony" (strange coincidence music) (Frank Zappa), than it does the remix.
Whereas the remix or vs. record is a consciously manipulated thing, usually involving the actual reconfiguration of one or more recordings in order to make a new piece with elements referring to the originals (note the similarity to pastiche), the Pink Floyd/Oz bit is more of a passive experience. That is, it lacks an author in a way that the remix does not, using two discrete elements whole rather than reworking one or the other for the benefit of the combined whole.
In other words, putting Pink Floyd on with the Wizard of Oz is something like a self-authored Charles Ives piece. Ives was fond of splitting the orchestra into two halves, each playing a different piece. The ensuing noise, the result of chance, luck, and careful conducting, he called music. And so it is.
Or, take for instance John Cage's famous 4'33''. The "point" of that piece is that the silence it contains means that the listener focuses on the other sounds in the environment-- breathing, creaking, traffic, whatever, and that in effect becomes the piece. Apart from the intent of the player to declare the piece begun and over, the piece itself is a more-or-less passive experience.
But all this is on a technical or theoretical level. Aesthetically, Floyd/Oz may amount to the same thing as a versus record. That is, if you privelige the experience of the listener over the experience of the author, yes, to the [em]listener[/em], Floyd/Oz comes off very similar to, say, Zappa's "Keep it Greasey," or Eminem vs. Led Zeppelin, even though their modes of production are almost as different as can be.
Let me think more about this and see if I can make my argument a little clearer.