Billie and Si said it was wicked - great crowd, music etc.

Would have been right up for it if that cotton bud bloke hadn't been in town...

it's an edit, a very clever and complex one but as per the other ones i've quoted, still an edit. so it depends on what your definition of an edit is. to edit is to chop something up isn't it. that's what "edit" means.

if you listen to that reedit of Wings - Let Me In for example, there is some additional production going on, in fact many of the better ones add some tweaks. Rack Em's edit of Joubert Singers is again, an edit with some additional production in it.

The only edits that suck and aren't really that valid are the generic "loop the first 8 bars" edits, in which case the criticism is more than justified.

it's a remix!!!!

sounds very much like the joubert singers to me, therefore it must be an edit.

(i loveeeeeeee winding beane up... )

I'm with beane

Once you add something to it ,it aint a re-edit no more

Maybe not a full remix BUT theres definitely some added production work thats more than just 'moving a few bits about'

so maybe we can officially call them -

're-edits with a bit of production added but not a full remix'

You're right, Beane.

Mostly "edit" is now a more fashionable way of saying "remix". But neither means now what it meant in the past.

Still, semantics aside, some edits are great and some are shit. And there are loads of them about.

there we have it finely concluded.

Reversion? Retouch?

Most remixed aren't even remixes, since they're doing more than just mixing the original elements in a different way. As soon as you add new elements it becomes a new production, even if only very slightly.

When they added all those new scenes to the original Star Wars films, was that remixing the original or re-editing? Neither, it was a new film.

its going to be a long night isnt it .

To tell you the truth though , when they added the extra scenes for the video sales release of 'the Wanderers' without telling anybody I felt a bit cheated.

"That aint the original film" I cried "It aint going to be as good as the proper version"

I aint changed much have I since I was 15

things get even more complicated when people decide to do a re-edit of remix.



Is it classed as a re-edit of a remix or a remix of a remix of a re-edit or a re-edit of a remixed re-edit.

Let's not even start on re-touching a rework that's been re-visited. Pandoras box right there. Oo-er

careful slamming the bee gees, todd terje did this magic!!!

http://hypem.com/track/421781/The+Bee+Gees...odd+Terje+edit)

think edits are fine in the main, the good ones, i mean, that tweak an improve - no one makes well produced pop now in the same way as early 80s/late 70s and who put an orchestra in a top 40 dance record recently... no one, so edit up an old track to be more dance friendly and bang, better production values, nice record to dance to. A lot of pop now is shite.

Edits also take out all the crap bits in otherwise good records - case in point Moxie - Never Fade, removes all the Kenny G moments from the Ronnie Laws orig and therefore improves the tune imho.

can't listen to beanes post right now so cannae comment on them

viva la edit!

Two points well made.

Even going into the 1990's major record companies were still filling out pop singles with 'interesting' remixes

I think when the chart regulators starting implementing new rules for chart elligibility i.e only 3 tracks per single , cannot be longer than 22 minutes etc that the remixing of a pop single into something else completely as the 8th mix on a single release ended.


U2s 'Even better than the real thing' remixed by Paul Oakenfold is an absolute classic remix of a pop track

Edits, pah!

Too many that take a talented, well revered artist's work and screw around with it in a comparatively amateur fashion. I guess you're likely to shift more units of a re-edit of a tune which is recognised to be good already than something you've done from scratch.

This is such a geek conversation.

So let me get this straight... a re-edit mostly sounds the same as the original, if they add anything new it's a remix... BUT it's not just a reissue, because they play with the levels, make the bass bassier, add some kind of punch... AND it's not a straight remaster either because there's some creative input in how you do it...?