I can understand remastering, but what purpose does re-mixing do? There was a reason it was mixed that way in the first place. The artist(s) and producer evidently wanted it that way. It should not be tampered with.
Sales, Sales, Sales. Money, Money, Money...I find no use for it either. I'd rather retain the original intent.
One reason would be some songs weren't mixed into stereo. A remix can let you do that. Another reason would be if the multitracks exist, but the mono/stereo masters don't (and only high generation tapes do, if at all). And yet another reason would be if the original mix is particularly bad. Do you know what I'd give to hear a stereo remix of "Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, Standing In The Shadow?" put together from all of the various multitrack stages? Not all remixes are bad. Some are quite good, actually. Done *right*, you can stay true to the original mix, yet get some extra fidelity.
A good example of a remix done properly was Dylan's "Street Legal" lp. The original was dull, muddy. The new (re)mix is much better. Mud-
Vintage "stereo" classical and jazz is a great example of a good reason to remix. Going back to original 3 tracks is essential to get the purest sound. It gets tricky with pop music, since the particular sounds or effects created during original mixing is so important to the recording. Dan C
I really like the Simon & Garfunkel remixes, as well as the CSNs. I even like (gasp!) the John Lennon remixes. Flame me. Flame me now!
I'd even go so far as to say that Steve's remix of the Mamas & Papas on MCA was both necessary and excellent
Is this a trick question? Answer is the same reason for Re-mastering. To make the recording sound more Realistic. (Goto a live concert!) Most of the time it fails. If you can't get round this one, you may as well play your music through a single speaker portable (or similar), and have it sounding crap. Funny thing is, there's some people out there who slag off 'Remixing' but are all for 'Multichannel'. Work that one out.
The stereo remix of Pet sounds is definitely a revelation after only hearing it in mono all these years, but its sounds "too new" with obvious digital reverb/processing, etc. I actually prefer the Sea of Tunes Pet Sounds 8 CD set for stereo listening. The mixes are all over the place but at least they are just flat transfers, with no modern processing.
Steve didn't remix that - I'm not even sure if the multitracks still exist. Just a heavy-handed remastering...
I'm sure if the multitracks could have been found he would have used them. Just listen to Monday Monday and see how everything has been dumped onto one track, with lead vocal on another and backing vocals/orchestra on the third. I'm sure it sounded fine in mono but it is a mess in stereo. Still, Steve can make even **** sound like gold!
Re: Re: Why Remix? Luke, Great post and points well-made. With vintage recordings all of your reasons for the completion of re-mixes apply. There are countless examples. Bob
Agreed! This also applies to the the Beatles Anthology tracks. They are mostly OK but I still prefer the unprocessed sound of the better bootlegs. Why do people insist on ruining vintage recordings (or even new ones) with digital reverb? Give me plate/echo chamber/(even) spring reverb everytime! Maybe they used an echo chamber (rebuilt for the project I seem to remember) on Anthology but it also sounds to me like some modern effects were also used. Is it just me or does anyone else hate the way the gate throws the ride cymbal all over the place on Hey Jude (Anthology version)?
