how is dodgson a variant of an original recording (of a song) made by rearranging or adding to the original? there was no original song i was rearranging or adding to there

+3

You took audio that already existed and chopped it up. The music was original, sure. But that fact that there was audio that already existed and you rearranged it qualifies it as a remix, as opposed to your Closing Time or The Way arrangements, where you took the original melody and played with it, but didn't use any of original recording.

+1

no that's stupid and youre wrong. for one thing youre being incredibly picky and weird about the word remix, a word that wasnt used heavily until the 90s. it's such a new word, and has been using to mean re-arrangement so much, what's the point of fighting it? so you mean to say that cutting up clips of a man talking with no music would be more of a remix than me re-making a song to sound techno-y? what you're saying doesnt make sense, and what you say about dodgson doesnt even agree..

+2

... with the dictionary definition that specifies that a remix has to be a variant of a song, not a variant of someone talking.

+2

True, the dictionary definition doesn't cover every facet. But I'm pretty sure I'm right about the distinction. I admit I haven't taken a music class in years, so maybe I'm way off-base. But I encourage you to ask around. This site apparently came off bitchier and preachier than I intended. I just made it for people's edification.

+1

...which will make it all the more embarrassing if I'm wrong.

+1

Wow, this site elicits the longest reply comments I have ever seen Keaton make regarding anything on the YTMND website. Good show.

+1

*walks away slowly*

+4