Guilt Is A Useless Emotion (Remix) betther than the original?
Archived118 replies · 3,649 views
eCKOh wrote: Which version would you rather here in a club though??
e C K o H
The Stuart Price version.
depthcharge wrote: When was the last time you were in a club Pats?
:\pimp3:
Have you heard of the Fifth Amendment, DC?
Have I said something incriminating?
Or is it just everything?
Did Bucks Fizz get a spin?
Kidding! I'm not having a dig at you Pats. Just seeking clarification of why you'd prefer to hear the Stuart Price remix in a club.
:\pimp3:
I'd be curious to hear all the other versions of Guilt though... there is apparently 5 or 6 others!
It's way better,
More nuance in the electro--original too straight-forward More Hooky--nuff said.
Still don't like the chorus though, would have been better to instrumental the chorus, come to think of it, so would Dracula's Castle been a better instrumental.
depthcharge wrote: Did Bucks Fizz get a spin?
Kidding! I'm not having a dig at you Pats. Just seeking clarification of why you'd prefer to hear the Stuart Price remix in a club.
:\pimp3:
Because the Stuart Price mix sounds like it was meant to be played in a club and the Quayle mix doesn't, DC.
I realize that's less articulate than you might expect from me, but remember, I've only heard the Quayle mix once.
Peter Brown wrote: It's way better,
More nuance in the electro--original too straight-forward More Hooky--nuff said.
Still don't like the chorus though, would have been better to instrumental the chorus, come to think of it, so would Dracula's Castle been a better instrumental.
Crazy mutha
The Mac Quayle has more Hooky in the first minute, but in that same first minute there is that awful ambient synth opening, and the tacky synth beat starting 13 seconds in. If I were dancing (which I would never do :p ) I'd probably rather hear the Mac Quayle version since it's more powerful. The album version has a refreshing lightness to it, and it is a more unified, refined track. The synths are better onthe album version, period.
The remix takes out the emotional punch of the chorus. It's still very interesting and good, but not quite as choice as the original.
Remix as good as the original! 
I'm undecided, actually... some absolutely fabulous keyboards here...
If I had the track from someone on this forum I would thank him but we're all honest here and so I won't say it happened... ;)
This is too stupid that I Tunes won't let you download the single track, I mean, the whole point of I Tunes was supposed to be you could download any track you want if you didn't want the others, or before deciding if you want them...
Don't wanna hear them complain about piracy then... 
I could swear that there is a piano keyboard riff at a little after 4 minutes that they've used before in another song on the Quayle version...gonna have another listen later...wouldn't be the first time they recycled (hehehe) their own music
Hydrapelican wrote: I could swear that there is a piano keyboard riff at a little after 4 minutes that they've used before in another song on the Quayle version...gonna have another listen later...wouldn't be the first time they recycled (hehehe) their own music
I'm not sure whether we are thinking about the same thing but try listening to the Stadium mix of Spooky.
The whole minute of the Quayle version starting at about 4:00 sounds very like that mix of Spooky to me.
It seems to me that they are plagiarizing themselves (or perhaps one of their remixers).
depthcharge wrote: Did Bucks Fizz get a spin?
Kidding! I'm not having a dig at you Pats. Just seeking clarification of why you'd prefer to hear the Stuart Price remix in a club.
:\pimp3:
OK, DC, after listening to the Quayle mix several more times, I agree it could fit in quite well in a club. The first 72 seconds in particular have that quality.
I guess I would say that the Stuart Price version is an "upbeat" dance track, whereas the Quayle version is a dance track, but not an "upbeat" one.
Patrick wrote:
The whole minute of the Quayle version starting at about 4:00 sounds very like that mix of Spooky to me.
It seems to me that they are plagiarizing themselves (or perhaps one of their remixers).
I would prefer to think of this track as having risen from the ashes of the earlier work.
BIGINOIL wrote:
Patrick wrote:
The whole minute of the Quayle version starting at about 4:00 sounds very like that mix of Spooky to me.
It seems to me that they are plagiarizing themselves (or perhaps one of their remixers).
I would prefer to think of this track as having risen from the ashes of the earlier work.
That's a very poetic way of putting it. Have you considered a career in journalism, Big?
Patrick wrote:
BIGINOIL wrote:
Patrick wrote:
The whole minute of the Quayle version starting at about 4:00 sounds very like that mix of Spooky to me.
It seems to me that they are plagiarizing themselves (or perhaps one of their remixers).
I would prefer to think of this track as having risen from the ashes of the earlier work.
That's a very poetic way of putting it. Have you considered a career in journalism, Big?
I already write on Popular Music in 'North West Scotland Gardeners Review', but will consider any other work.
BIGINOIL wrote:
Patrick wrote:
BIGINOIL wrote:
Patrick wrote:
The whole minute of the Quayle version starting at about 4:00 sounds very like that mix of Spooky to me.
It seems to me that they are plagiarizing themselves (or perhaps one of their remixers).
I would prefer to think of this track as having risen from the ashes of the earlier work.
That's a very poetic way of putting it. Have you considered a career in journalism, Big?
I already write on Popular Music in 'North West Scotland Gardeners Review', but will consider any other work.
Has that publication reviewed WFTSC yet?
Patrick wrote:
BIGINOIL wrote:
Patrick wrote:
BIGINOIL wrote:
Patrick wrote:
The whole minute of the Quayle version starting at about 4:00 sounds very like that mix of Spooky to me.
It seems to me that they are plagiarizing themselves (or perhaps one of their remixers).
I would prefer to think of this track as having risen from the ashes of the earlier work.
That's a very poetic way of putting it. Have you considered a career in journalism, Big?
I already write on Popular Music in 'North West Scotland Gardeners Review', but will consider any other work.
Has that publication reviewed WFTSC yet?
No. Why do you think I'm here?
Patrick wrote: So when can we look forward to that review appearing?
Do you subscribe to the 'North West Scotland Gardeners Review', Patrick?
BIGINOIL wrote:
Patrick wrote: So when can we look forward to that review appearing?
Do you subscribe to the 'North West Scotland Gardeners Review', Patrick?
I don't currently. I've often thought about it, but I already subscribe to a lot of publications. However, the prospect of a review of WFTSC might change my mind.
Patrick wrote:
BIGINOIL wrote:
Patrick wrote: So when can we look forward to that review appearing?
Do you subscribe to the 'North West Scotland Gardeners Review', Patrick?
I don't currently. I've often thought about it, but I already subscribe to a lot of publications. However, the prospect of a review of WFTSC might change my mind.
A condensed version of my musings will appear on our web site.
BIGINOIL wrote:
Patrick wrote:
BIGINOIL wrote:
Patrick wrote: So when can we look forward to that review appearing?
Do you subscribe to the 'North West Scotland Gardeners Review', Patrick?
I don't currently. I've often thought about it, but I already subscribe to a lot of publications. However, the prospect of a review of WFTSC might change my mind.
A condensed version of my musings will appear on our web site.
And what.com might that be?
BIGINOIL wrote: It's actually a .co.uk, so not accessable from the US.
Maybe I should consider moving.
Patrick wrote:
BIGINOIL wrote: It's actually a .co.uk, so not accessable from the US.
Maybe I should consider moving.
Don't forget Patrick, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.
BIGINOIL wrote:
Patrick wrote:
BIGINOIL wrote: It's actually a .co.uk, so not accessable from the US.
Maybe I should consider moving.
Don't forget Patrick, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.
I interpret that as a recommendation against moving.
Patrick wrote:
BIGINOIL wrote:
Patrick wrote:
BIGINOIL wrote: It's actually a .co.uk, so not accessable from the US.
Maybe I should consider moving.
Don't forget Patrick, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.
I interpret that as a recommendation against moving.
Certainly not! (Is this an ellipsis?) I was simply cautioning against letting the advantages of another location blind you to the benefits of staying where you are.
Besides, someone is bound to post the review here.
