[mb-users] Two questions about mash-ups

[Björn Krombholz]

On 6/3/05, Matthew Exon <03999128 at exon.dyndns.org> wrote:
> Now you describe it, it does sound more like a remix to me.

I aggree.

>  Maybe it's
> time we allowed more than one source for a remix.  Another possibility
> is just to use "samples from".  Either way, we're right in the middle of
> the grey area now...

I'd prefer the remix. "Sample" as I understand it is some kind of
sound snippet from an external source mixed into a song. Samples are
often used in it's original form (maybe a bit pitched, streched,
looped etc.). I wouldn't classify an accoustic guitar sample that got
distorted and then reused in another track still as a sample. The same
for an melodic part that was changed to sound like it was played on
some kind of organ or a complete drum line that was taken from song A
and is now replacing the drum line in song B.

> Medley is a good word, it'd be good to have a "is a medley of"
> relationship for mixtapes.  A big long track composed of five other
> tracks mixed together would have five relationships.  A CD with 12
> tracks, each of which just has its start and end a little messed with,
> would have each of its tracks being "a medley of" one corresponding
> source track.  If you see what I mean.

Yes and I agree. ;)
 
> I think the existing "is a remix of" would be fine for the multi-mash-up
> thing, since remixes already have substantial original material, so it's
> not implied that the majority of the resulting song comes from any one
> particular source.  It just needs to allow multiple sources, that's all.

I agree. Do you know the reason why it was restricted to be a 1-1
relationship in the first place?


Fuchs