Do you like remixes? FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jan 23, 2018 18:00:51 GMT
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Jan 23, 2018 18:00:51 GMT
Remixing RAM to fix phasing issues
If anyone has control issues, it’s those who have some compulsion to re-mix everything that doesn’t satisfy THEIR taste. BAFFLING.
And I spend little time or energy wishing it to be so.
Remixes for me, originals for you.
We should team up on the Middle East situation...
IMO, only a select few who see themselves as the arbiters of all that is right and wrong cry for re-mixes. Fortunately, few albums get re-mixed because most artists don’t care to revisit the past and most record companies have no interest in throwing good money after bad to remix albums just to satisy a few zealots.
If an artist wants to re-visit the past and someone wants to pay for it and it’s more than a lame result - which is exceedingly rare - I’ll be the first to be okay with it. But given how rare it is, I’m glad the vast majority of the decision makers would rather the energy and resources be put somewhere more creative and productive.
I guess if you'd answered the question I posed ("Do you"? ... asked in regard to remixing) I'd be able to say more. But you haven't really, not exactly. So as far as I can see, we agree on the question.
Nobody that matters cares what they think.
*Remixing should never be done*
Agree or disagree?
If your answer is "Agree", then you're correct, we do have a fundamental disagreement.
If your answer is "Disagree", then we're on the same page with regard to the point I was making.
But I think by and large, remixes are an exercise in futility - they’re just delusions of grandeur for the obsessed zealots who believe they know what is good or bad and have a compulsive need to create order out of disorder. And by and large, at best, IMO the end result is nothing more than a different version of artistic imperfection.
Should bands go back and re-record albums that don’t meet certain audiophile standards as defined by a cadre of self-annointed experts? Where does it end?
You get your originals, I get my remixes.
I notice you demand that others answer your pointless, gotcha questions, but you choose to ignore questions posed to you...
It doesn’t appear that different from your philosophy on remixing.
I simply responded to your original post that clearly stated that those with an anti-remix bias (which I admittedly have) have control issues. It is this point where we fundamentally disagree. Go back and read it. Those with an anti-mix bias (or at least me, I can’t pretend to speak for the entire “anti-remix bias” community) are perfectly happy with imperfection and dislike remixes as a rule for the reasons I stated - which have nothing to do with “control”.
As I said, rather than re-mix why not just re-record albums while we’re at it?
What I've been referring to in this conversation, which I've tried to make clear, is what I said in my statement, here: "But some of these people go further and say it shouldn't be done at all". I stand by what I said, that I think this is a control issue, as it seeks to deny others, going beyond "I don't want it for myself". Nearly all of my comments with you were to clarify this point, not to obscure this point. I'm still trying. If you feel this is another irrelevant, non-sequitur, and anything other than me trying to be understood, you should bail. There's no point in going any further. Otherwise, I'm happy to discuss.
I just think your characterization of anti-remix folks as controlling was, at best, inaccurate (for the reasons I stated) and, at worst, hypocritical (for the reasons I also stated).
I’ve beaten this horse enough and I’m ready to turn this back over to folks who want to talk about the Ram issue in question.
I've tried to be clear - I am referring to those who believe remixing should never be done. Almost by definition, their interest is in what *others* hear. That I think, is about control - whether they know it consciously or not.
We are in agreement on the issue at hand: You get your originals, I get my remixes. Neither of us believe that remixing should never be done.
Shaddam IV said:
Hang in there, there's an anti-remix bias around here. I'm going to be blunt: these people have control issues. If you don't want it, fine, say so. But some of these people go further and say it shouldn't be done at all like they're concerned about your taste and how YOU should experience the world or something. Baffling.marcb said:
No it’s because 1) most re-mixes suck, 2) they weren’t really necessary to begin with and 3) some of us prefer to move forward rather than revisiting the past in the endless search to create order out of disorder.If anyone has control issues, it’s those who have some compulsion to re-mix everything that doesn’t satisfy THEIR taste. BAFFLING.
Shaddam IV said:
I have no compulsion to deny anyone what they want. Do you?marcb said:
I’m neither delusional nor self-centered enough to think the rest of world remotely wants what I want just because I want it.And I spend little time or energy wishing it to be so.
Shaddam IV said:
Then we're good, we don't disagree on the point I was making, as far as I can see.Remixes for me, originals for you.
We should team up on the Middle East situation...
marcb said:
We fundamentally disagree almost entirely.IMO, only a select few who see themselves as the arbiters of all that is right and wrong cry for re-mixes. Fortunately, few albums get re-mixed because most artists don’t care to revisit the past and most record companies have no interest in throwing good money after bad to remix albums just to satisy a few zealots.
If an artist wants to re-visit the past and someone wants to pay for it and it’s more than a lame result - which is exceedingly rare - I’ll be the first to be okay with it. But given how rare it is, I’m glad the vast majority of the decision makers would rather the energy and resources be put somewhere more creative and productive.
Shaddam IV said:
Remixes for me, originals for you I guess if you'd answered the question I posed ("Do you"? ... asked in regard to remixing) I'd be able to say more. But you haven't really, not exactly. So as far as I can see, we agree on the question.
marcb said:
What relevance is your question to anything? Why would I bother trying to deny a few old men yelling at fast trains to slow down their freedom to yell at fast trains to slow down?Nobody that matters cares what they think.
Shaddam IV said:
If you really want to get to the bottom of this (no one else cares at this point!) I'll be as clear as I can (I wasn't very clear before):*Remixing should never be done*
Agree or disagree?
If your answer is "Agree", then you're correct, we do have a fundamental disagreement.
If your answer is "Disagree", then we're on the same page with regard to the point I was making.
marcb said:
I’m not a child so don’t think in absolutes on a topic like this.But I think by and large, remixes are an exercise in futility - they’re just delusions of grandeur for the obsessed zealots who believe they know what is good or bad and have a compulsive need to create order out of disorder. And by and large, at best, IMO the end result is nothing more than a different version of artistic imperfection.
Should bands go back and re-record albums that don’t meet certain audiophile standards as defined by a cadre of self-annointed experts? Where does it end?
Shaddam IV said:
In which case your answer is "Disagree", in which case we don't have a fundamental disagreement re: the issue I raised.You get your originals, I get my remixes.
marcb said:
If you believe that, I’m happy for you.I notice you demand that others answer your pointless, gotcha questions, but you choose to ignore questions posed to you...
Shaddam IV said:
That's kind of disingeuous and snotty, but whatever. I'm conversing in good faith here. We agree that you can have your originals, and I can have my remixes. We disagree on their merits. The first point is the one I was making, you seem to agree with it.marcb said:
But you’re not conversing in good faith. You’re posing irrelevant questions and twisting the answers to believe what you to believe.It doesn’t appear that different from your philosophy on remixing.
Shaddam IV said:
We agree that you can have your originals, and I can have my remixes. We disagree on their merits. The first point is the one I was making, you seem to agree with it. We each agree we can have what we want, and I'm cool with that.marcb said:
But you’re not conversing in good faith. You posted an inflammatory remark and then in response to the rebuttal, you started posing irrelevant non-sequitur questions and twisting the answers to believe what you wan to believe and pretend like you’re taking the high road.I simply responded to your original post that clearly stated that those with an anti-remix bias (which I admittedly have) have control issues. It is this point where we fundamentally disagree. Go back and read it. Those with an anti-mix bias (or at least me, I can’t pretend to speak for the entire “anti-remix bias” community) are perfectly happy with imperfection and dislike remixes as a rule for the reasons I stated - which have nothing to do with “control”.
As I said, rather than re-mix why not just re-record albums while we’re at it?
Shaddam IV said:
First, please assume that I'm conversing in good faith (I am), or bail. If you feel that I'm not conversing in good faith, but want to stay in the conversation, then please ask me questions to clarify what it is you think is my position (as I have of you -questions that you're seeing as "irrelevant"). I can assure you, the rest of your first paragraph is a misrepresentation. I'm trying to get to agreement. Let's try to get to agreement.What I've been referring to in this conversation, which I've tried to make clear, is what I said in my statement, here: "But some of these people go further and say it shouldn't be done at all". I stand by what I said, that I think this is a control issue, as it seeks to deny others, going beyond "I don't want it for myself". Nearly all of my comments with you were to clarify this point, not to obscure this point. I'm still trying. If you feel this is another irrelevant, non-sequitur, and anything other than me trying to be understood, you should bail. There's no point in going any further. Otherwise, I'm happy to discuss.
marcb said:
We don’t need to agree. To remix or not to remix...it’s a subjective question and nobody that matters really cares what we think.I just think your characterization of anti-remix folks as controlling was, at best, inaccurate (for the reasons I stated) and, at worst, hypocritical (for the reasons I also stated).
I’ve beaten this horse enough and I’m ready to turn this back over to folks who want to talk about the Ram issue in question.
Shaddam IV said:
This has never been what *we* were discussing. *I* was discussing the issue of whether remixing should in principle, never be done - and those who hold that view.I've tried to be clear - I am referring to those who believe remixing should never be done. Almost by definition, their interest is in what *others* hear. That I think, is about control - whether they know it consciously or not.
We are in agreement on the issue at hand: You get your originals, I get my remixes. Neither of us believe that remixing should never be done.
marcb said:
Let me make this clear so there is no confusion. As hard as you keep trying to “control” and “remix” this conversation to suit your desires, I do not agree with you on ANYTHING you have written in this thread. PERIOD.Shaddam IV said:
My mistake then. Logic therefore dictates that you believe remixing should never be done, and we are in disagreement. Glad that's over.