Lionrock's 1963 "remix"

Was just playing the three Lionrock mixes on the 1963 promo 12". As far as I can tell, this features absolutely nothing of the original song, and rather than being a remix, is probably actually a completely new Lionrock song.

Anyone else noticed this? I know the Aphex Twin often had a habit of donating new songs to bands and telling them it was a "remix", but I can't think of any other New Order remix that has none of the original elements included? Very dodgy. Hell, even that Sly & Robbie crap had the vocals from Ruined In A Day included!

Andy

Check the Ceremony-archives from the mid/late-90's and look for topics talking about Armand van Helden. There you will find my "devil's advocate" opinion about these kind of remixes...

/TLV

But hey, at least it hasn't got the shite saxophone from the Joe Vanelli mixes.

Originally posted by death of art But hey, at least it hasn't got the shite saxophone from the Joe Vanelli mixes.

Strange choice of mixes that went on the 1963 release. The Arthur Baker mix was rather lovely, as was the Stephen Hague 94 edit, then there was the Lionrock waste of time, and the 'dub' version of the Joe T. Vanelli mix, which just sampled the one word of 1963 ("Johnny", indeed). Surely, his 'Light Mix' with the full vocal from the song was intended as the main remix, yet it ended up as just a B-side remix on a twelve inch.

The CD single would have been much better if it had swapped the Lionrock mix for Arthur Baker's full-length remix, and the Vanelli dub mix for the 'light' mix. Then again, what with the God awful mixes of 'Bizarre Love Triangle' and 'Age Of Consent' on 'The Rest Of', the dodgy 1963 remixes should have come as no surprise.

Andy

Too true mate. To be honest the only worthwhile thing about the 1963 single was the neat die-cut sleeves (12" and CD2). The mixes are all way inferior to the original b-side version.

I still rather like some of the BM95 mixes though...

I like that Lionrock one, but don't consider it a mix of 1963.

Never heard the vinyl only mixes,but the mixes on the cd single are poor. Having said that arent all the remixes from Republic? With maybe the exception of Regret.

Have to disagree - I prefer the Republic remixes to the originals, in many cases. For example, Ruined (Ambient Mix and Reunited In A Day), Spooky (Out of Order Mix) and World (Perfecto Mix). The original of Regret is the best, but I do like the Sabres Fast'n'Throb mix too.

The only real duffers are those Sly & Robbie Ruined mixes - what a waste of New Order, Ruined and Sly & Robbie!

Originally posted by Mr Discography I can't think of any other New Order remix that has none of the original elements included? Very dodgy.Andy

Yeah, that's a great crap. And what about "Temptation" (CJ Bolland mix) from "(the Rest Of) New Order" (1995)? Sounds like a Future Sound Of London song.

Originally posted by Spotnick I must admit it's true... RIAD/World/Spooky all feature remixes better than album versions...That tells you a lot about Republic, isn't it?And Regret, the New Order mix isn't too bad either...

agreed....

oh and I'll donate on of my least favorite remixes...how about the "inch remix" of Prodigal Son (at least I think that its PS...can really be bothered to look it up right now)...its unlistenable

Somebody within the NO camp must have liked the Lionrock 1963 mixes...given Roger Lyons' current involvement. *shrug*

Oh, yeah, I really don't care for the "assless of time" or whatever it is 1963 remix...

Originally posted by LOng Tall Texan And what about "Temptation" (CJ Bolland mix) from "(the Rest Of) New Order" (1995)? Sounds like a Future Sound Of London song.

Yeah, there seemed to be a habit at that time - with the Pet Shop Boys also - of getting whoever had happened to have had a half-decent dance hit to remix tracks. Trouble is, although some of the remixers may make great material for their own releases, they don't get paid an awful lot to do a remix, and probably have no interest in paying respect to the structure of the song. Most of the time, you get the shell of whatever dance hit they had, with one or two vocal samples of the song they've been asked to remix.

Sometimes it works well - I quite like the Dave Clarke 'Everything's Gone Green' on the vinyl 'Rest Of', but then again, I like Dave Clarke in the first place. The CJ Bolland 'Temptation' is okay (some nice, gritty synth patches in there), but it's just a novelty that I hardly listen to. As for that Armand Van Helden 'Bizarre Love Triangle'... Don't get me started. I think I've only listened to 'The Rest Of' the whole way through once - I always skip that and the Pump Panel 'Confusion' (a nice vibe going on, but too LONG!). Many of these remixers should just stick to DJing or making their own tracks.

Thing is, I thought the whole point of having so many remixes done was to increase the chances of getting played in dance clubs, but when have you ever heard any of these remixes being played by a trendy DJ in a decent club? Other than the originals getting played at indie nights, these tracks are invariably a waste of time and effort - which is probably why the mixes are often so dire: the remixere knows no one apart from New Order completists are going to hear it!

Andy

Originally posted by Spotnick The Pump Panel Confusion Mix is also a new song, but at least it features the vocals, in a vocoder true, but they are there!!And I believe that it's the Instrumental version that got popular in clubs...

Yeah the DJs went mad for that tune over here... it got played every bloody night As for really crap remixes, nothing can be worse than Armand Van Helden's version of Bizarre Love Triangle. Most of the mixes of 1963 were cack too, and then you have the Sly & Robbie mixes of Ruined In A day and the remixes of Crystal and 60 Miles An Hour... Other than that I think most of the mixes are good.

Originally posted by Mr Discography Trouble is, although some of the remixers may make great material for their own releases, they don't get paid an awful lot to do a remix, and probably have no interest in paying respect to the structure of the song. Most of the time, you get the shell of whatever dance hit they had, with one or two vocal samples of the song they've been asked to remix.

A business-insider told me that a typical remixer usually gets between $3000 and $10000 for a remix. I don't know about you, but to me that's a nice deal.

The remixer is often chosen by the label (not necessarily by the band/artist) based on the remixer's style. Hence, one may be able to hear what remixer made the remix. Just like one may hear what band/artist made the track, the first time one hears the track. Of course, some remixers get stuck in their style (read: Peter Rauhofer)...

/TLV

NewOrder, or people representing N.O, should have been more discerning from 1993-1995 when accepting or rejecting remixes. Either they were very good ('World' Perfecto, Most of the 'Spooky' ones, 'True Faith 94') or just plain rammell ('Ruined In A Day' Sly & Robbie, '1963' Lionrock & Joe Vanelli, 'Blue Monday 95')

And I guess that if the record label have paid a few thousand pounds for a DJ to remix a track, they're going to release it no matter how bad it is - a waste of money to leave a remix unreleased when it has a trendy DJ or artist remixing it, even if it is shite.

I read a quote from Neil Tennant somewhere, saying that there are no unreleased Pet Shop Boys remixes, so that would back up my theory. Thing is though, if a record company isn't happy with a band's album session, you often hear of the band getting sent back into the studio to re-record it, or mix it again. A shame they don't do the same with some of these remixers: "It's terrible: go back in the studio and do something half decent, please", or even "Mr Sly and Mr Robbie - we appreciate you've taken the time to do five remixes for New Order, but there is in fact no difference between any of the blighters, and the one mix you've replicated five times is crap in the first place". No, they just release a worthless 'limited edition' CD single, with no questions asked!

Andy

Originally posted by Mr Discography And I guess that if the record label have paid a few thousand pounds for a DJ to remix a track, they're going to release it no matter how bad it is - a waste of money to leave a remix unreleased when it has a trendy DJ or artist remixing it, even if it is shite.

That's an interesting point indeed. Never thought of it. But that's hell awful.

Originally posted by Mr Discography And I guess that if the record label have paid a few thousand pounds for a DJ to remix a track, they're going to release it no matter how bad it is - a waste of money to leave a remix unreleased when it has a trendy DJ or artist remixing it, even if it is shite.I read a quote from Neil Tennant somewhere, saying that there are no unreleased Pet Shop Boys remixes, so that would back up my theory. Thing is though, if a record company isn't happy with a band's album session, you often hear of the band getting sent back into the studio to re-record it, or mix it again. A shame they don't do the same with some of these remixers: "It's terrible: go back in the studio and do something half decent, please", or even "Mr Sly and Mr Robbie - we appreciate you've taken the time to do five remixes for New Order, but there is in fact no difference between any of the blighters, and the one mix you've replicated five times is crap in the first place". No, they just release a worthless 'limited edition' CD single, with no questions asked!

That's funny :)

There is an unreleased Danny Tenaglia remix of World (and possibly other from the Republic era). Apparently it sucks.

Then again, it's not always easy to satisfy the die-hard fan - other than to release a typical 80's Extended Mix. A "strange" remix may be able to attract people who would normally not listen to New Order...

/TLV

the label should at least see if the remixer actually likes New Order in the first place before they spend alot of money.
Armand Van Helden clearly wanted to destroy BLT and make it pretty much unlistenable... and he still gets paid.

actually a lot of these 90s remixes are good ideas to start with, most of these are good producers... just some didn't always work, or they didn't get very inspired... what is wrong is that the remixer gets paid either way

i like the Hardfloor Blue Monday 95, but they put the worst BM95 remix on Retro, and the Richie hawtin version never even got widely released... doesnt seem to be much consistent decision making (prolly an intern), i wonder if any of the band members even bothered to put in any input because they were refusing to agree on anything

What I like about the Republic remixes are they aren't just the same loops rearranged (think Subculture, BLT), they take the song in a new direction. That wasn't very common before the 90's.

Don't you reckon though that the best remixers for a song are either the group themselves... or someone who is a fan of the groups music? Hence the reason that the Perfecto mixes are good, and also the Biff & Memphis mix of Touched by the Hand of God?

Originally posted by TLV A business-insider told me that a typical remixer usually gets between $3000 and $10000 for a remix. I don't know about you, but to me that's a nice deal.The remixer is often chosen by the label (not necessarily by the band/artist) based on the remixer's style. Hence, one may be able to hear what remixer made the remix. Just like one may hear what band/artist made the track, the first time one hears the track. Of course, some remixers get stuck in their style (read: Peter Rauhofer).../TLV

London offered The Chemical Brothers a tidy sum to remix Temptation however they politely declined, citing "It's a classic, why touch it?"

Proves there's still some integrity amongst remixers. Although if it had to be remixed, I could think of many worse than them...

:\pimp3: