What constitutes as a 'remix' or 'original mix' ?

[pretzelz]

Hi all,

Which of these are 'remixes' or 'original remixes'?

1. If you've created an original track, and used (licensed) vocal stems from an existing track (which you may not even have heard)

2. If you've created an original track, and used (licensed) royalty-free vocal stems, which may or may not appear in other existing tracks (example: freevocals.com)


In my opinion, both 1 & 2 are original mixes, but use unoriginal licensed vocals. Since nothing other than vocal stems have been used from an existing track, to make your mix.

Thanks for the clarification

[JHughes]

I agree, if it's an original song, it's not a remix.

[micron]

a remix should be a re-styled version of an existing title, then an original title is not supposed to be made with 100% unpublished material, if you have the rights to use that material, you can make a new original tune with it.

[Colox]

Skip the fasion-term "mix", and use the traditional term "arrangement" instead. Makes it easier to understand the answer.
A "remix" is another name for a new arrangment of the same song; a re-arrangement. May depend on country, but in most cases the re-arranger (remixer) got rights to his alternative arrangement of the song, but not the song itself regardless of arrangement. The composer got rights for both the song and his original (meaning "first") arrangement of the song.

If there is no original (first) arrangement made (meaning the song is kindof a formless melodic idea) then the "re-mix" is not a "re-", but rather the original arrangement, the first.

Verbally, you can't make a "re-" anything, if there wasn't already something there. "Re-" refers to the changing or repeating of something, something which constitutes the first, the original, that you use as basis for your re-arranging of things. And legally, in many countries I believe you are breaking the copyright law if you publish a re-make of an original (first) thing to the public without the original song/make having been made published to the public first - or at least without expressed permission of the composer.

Or, if "remix" refers to making a new mixing of the same song - mixing, as in audio tech term for collecting all recorded assets and blending them into an artistic wholeness - then the new mix is not traditionally referred to as a "re-" mix - since it's not some exact repeating of the first time this process was done. It's simply a new mixing of the same song. A new mix.
A DJ's term "making a mix" doesn't refer to this above process, but rather to the real-time blending of one existing tune into another existing tune through some elaborate or intended transition. Therefore the DJ doesn't own rights for this either.

[pretzelz]

Thanks guys for your input, useful food for thought.