Why do artists allow other folks to remix and re-release their work without doing it themselves? That's right. How many billion$ would the record industry make if they began to regularly have great artists take past hits and merely write new lyrics to weave in and around the same refrain/chorus and melody? Basically, it's taking old hits and making them fresh. It's sampling themselves! I'm sure someone has done this, but I have no clue why everyone doesn't do it.

Think about if someone like Stevie or Prince or even Michael rewrote the lyrics to some of their hits and then re-released them? Folks love the music. If well written - they'd love the new versions, particularly if they used the same chorus.

OK - that's my gift to the music industry. Can a brotha get a hook up?

quote:

Why do artists allow other folks to remix and re-release their work without doing it themselves?

I think they allow it because

1. They don't want to do it themselves.

2. Since they're not going to do it themselves, they might as well make some money off somebody else doing it.


Take someone like Prince for example. Much of his reputation (and longevity) is based on traditional ideas of compositional strength and integrity. "Originality" - as vague as that notion can be - plays a big part of that. I don't think the aesthetic of the remix would square very well with what Prince is actually good at and is known for. Therefore he doesn't do it.

If he did do it, people would start talking about how his career is over.

That's definitely the case with people like Stevie Wonder, George Clinton, Curtis Mayfield, etc. (people who get sampled a lot).

But then there are people who do remixes of other people's stuff and it is its own artform. That's what they're good at. That's what they're known for. So that's what they do.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: HonestBrother,

I'M AN ELITIST TOO.

quote:

Originally posted by HonestBrother:

Take someone like Prince for example. Much of his reputation (and longevity) is based on traditional ideas of compositional strength and integrity. "Originality" - as vague as that notion can be - plays a big part of that.

Well . . .

first - I could seriously argue with you about Prince's originality. Would Prince be Prince without James Brown for example?

second - originality would be maintained by refreshing one's own work. It's merely interlacing fresh lyrics into your own past songs. It's adding new originality into old originality.

third - I would imagine that most musicians would value monetary compensation (even if they had to rationalize it by saying that it was a way to expose new listeners to their work ) over "originality". If someone could release a new album of refreshed songs - it's money in the bank.

James Brown never played EVERTHING in the band like Price has and does. Prince's sound has evovled over the years and he is one of the few artists who truly is a musician.

Can the main music buying consumers get into Prince, though? It's not just that the songs themselves have to be enjoyable to listen to. The artists themselves have to be able to appeal on other levels to fans. This "echo Boomer" age group has their own stars. They'll never get into "old fogies" like Stevie Wonder & Prince when they already have their Chris Brown & Ne-Yo.

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:

quote:

Originally posted by HonestBrother:

Take someone like Prince for example. Much of his reputation (and longevity) is based on traditional ideas of compositional strength and integrity. "Originality" - as vague as that notion can be - plays a big part of that.

Well . . .

first - I could seriously argue with you about Prince's originality. Would Prince be Prince without James Brown for example?

Your point is well taken. "Originality" is over rated and not that straightforward a concept. Even Beethoven might quote Mozart or show some other sign of influence.

But again:

quote:

Much of his reputation (and longevity) is based on traditional ideas of compositional strength and integrity. "Originality" - as vague as that notion can be - plays a big part of that.

It's a question not so much of pure "originality" (which doesn't exist) ... but of an artist being true to his/her art .... rather than straying into altogether different artistic realms.

Can one imagine Jessye Norman singing punk rock?

Or Wynton Marsalis championing smooth jazz?

Or Britney Spears deciding she wants to do an album of jazz standards?

It enhanced Aretha Franklin's reputation that she was able to fill in for Luciano Pavarotti .... but that wouldn't work for everybody.

As ambiguous as the idea of "originality" can be, the remix seems to exist somewhere either on or beyond the conceptual limits of the term as it is applied to traditional musical composition .... Even though within a different context it makes perfect sense to speak of the "originality" of a remix.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: HonestBrother,

I'M AN ELITIST TOO.

quote:

Originally posted by HonestBrother:

Can one imagine Jessie Norman singing punk rock?

Or Wynton Marsalis championing smooth jazz?

Or Britney Spears deciding she wants to do an album of jazz standards?

Last week I listened to an episode on "Genre-Bending Cover Songs."

I like the idea (especially if it's done as a homage and not in a snarky way, unless it's deserved, like J-Zay's live version of "Wonderwall" by Oasis.)

I'm a Prince fan from way back, talkin' about "Dirty Mind" way back. And I guess he's evolved as a performer, I mean he's traded the black bikini briefs, legwarmers, and trenchcoat, for suits, and he doesn't curse anymore in his songs. I've sort of wished that his overall sound evolved more/changed with the times a little. Okay, so he's attempted to rap; he's not very good at it. I ain't mad at him. I'm thinking of like how the Isley Brothers went from "Twist and Shout" to "Voyage to Atlantis." They handled the transition well. I just think even new Prince sounds like old Prince.

LOL... At first, I thought I read "gender-bending cover songs" instead of "genre-bending."

I thought to myself, "Oh, like at karaoke that time when I sang 'Midnight Train To Georgia.'" I changed the lyrics to "she'd rather live in my world, than live without me in hers." I don't think Gladys would've approved, though...

Next up: "Killing Her Softly (With My Song)."

But I digress...

I agree with Santana on Prince. His basic sound hasn't really changed that much. The main differences probably are attributable to his decreased reliance on electronics compared to his 80s stuff. AND the toned down sexuality. The problem is, I don't see him innovating musically anymore. When you've released as much music as Prince has, sounding like his old stuff comes across as rehashing and recycling. He'd probably be no worse off with MBM's idea.

Why do they allow others to re-mix their music and not do it themselves? It's a corporate money thing. It won't pay and the powers to be will not support it.

Plus two things. The original artist make more money from samples and why mess up true originals that still sells? It's double dippin' if done legally.

I think that it is also because with every new generation & era of popular music (especailly Black music) music changes consistantly and true artists, and musicians who write, arrange and compose and sing like Prince, James Brown & George Clinton cannot in the rabid era of Rap & Hip Hop be able sell re-mixes to the younger Hip Hop/rap audience and their dedicated older fans.

Young fans don't truly appreciate the music (that's mama & daddy's music) in it's original form and older fans will be turned off.

I also think that it would take away and ruin the integrity of the original song and the artist's integrity.

True artists and musicians (early jazz, soul, funk, dicso, blues, R&B), who wrote & created music from stratch with all their genius, heart and soul (unlike hip hop and rap artists who have bitten and copy everything from those genres since Rap/Hip Hop music began. All they do is write a rhyme over computerized orignal sample beats and sell/market it as inner city urban "ghetto thug life") are naturally gifted, and purposeful in their musical qualities and that is far more important and mainstays longer than assembly line (for the $$ moment) Hip Hop and Gangsta Rap.

Plus, I don't think that corporate music executives will support them with marketing and promotion, The fan base for original artist re-mixed hits is not there but the original hits is what's making money with CD/MP3/radio/sattalite radio sales and touring. This has always been the culture of the music industry.

Orignal old school acts and old school hits is the formula and always has been. The question is will tha same formula be there for Rap & Hip Hop when these artists get older?

I mean when they turn 50+ years old. They probably can still survive in their 40's but after the 40's, Who knows?

Forget the music video/acting/personal drama/"beef" drama/clothing line/alcoholic beverage sales. Only a few will make it through this narrowing African American musical gap that will be left behind by Hip Hop & Rap.

James Brown performed until his death at 73, sold out every night and remained on top of his game in the music world. Al Green transitions between Gospel & R&B with ease. Tina Turner came out of retirement and just recently announced a world tour. Patti Labelle, Aretha Franklin, Maze, O'Jay's, Parliament Fukadelic, the late Isaac Hayes, Barry White, Luther Vandross etc. The list goes on and on and on........

And for the White corporate music executive, the approving authority? Rap/Hip Hop paid them in full and they move forward, looking for the next money maker with a new corporate musical formula and new industry standards.

Can a Snoop Dogg, 50 Cent, Missy Elliot,Ying Yang Twins, L'il Wayne or L'il Jon be able to do that (gangsta thug life: tats, explicit advisory lyrics, female dedragation, strippers, pimping, bling etc) with their current musical libraries and sell it to their older grandparent/great grandparent fan base in the future?

Will you as an elderly citizen who grew up on Hip Hop/Rap still appreciate it?

The only hope for the future, though limited in numbers, may be the Neo-soul artists, ie Alicia Keyes, D'Angelo, John Legend etc and I will even include Wyclef Jean who seems to suscessfully overlap between the three genres.

The amount of profit $$$ being made does not matter and is not the issue. It's all about the music and it's generational, long lasting staying power.

The true question is: have we or are we as a Black music, hit the wall? Gospel, Blues, Jazz, Funk, and Disco layed the foundaion for Hip Hop & Rap music. What foundation and legacy will Hip Hop/Rap leave behind and what comes next?

After Hip Hop/Rap, where does African American music go in the future? In what direction?

What will the music sound like?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Cholly,