Columns

There are not many things that are so brutally disliked yet also embraced in the music world as the jolly old "remix". You take someone else's work, cut it up, and make it into something different – from merely changing the pitch, to rendering it unrecognisable. However it's done, it is clear that the era we occupy, more so than any other, is pre-occupied with them.

After a song is released, the web can flood itself with hundreds of different versions in only the time it takes to knock up a shoddy bootleg. Nine times out of ten I find myself listening to the remix of a particular song before I hear the original. It is easy enough to accept a track for what it is when it's the version you hear first, but there's nothing more repulsive than when you know the original and then hear a tacky "refix", "rework", "mash up" or "perspective" (some trendy names). However, the remix world has continued to grow so much over the years that artists now actively seek out producers to remix their works for them – so there must be something good about this "remix" generation.

The remix generation is one spawned by the human nature to take something you like and re-use and re-organise it in your own way. In the musical arena, this has been going on since the beginning of recorded sound. After cassettes became available and multitrack recording was developed in the '40s and '50s, modern remixing came into being through the '60s and '70s thanks to the Jamaicans. Genres like reggae, dub, ska, and rocksteady were "remicked" by producers including King Tubby and Lee "Scratch" Perry, who popularised instrumentals. Eventually, the artists didn't just take away parts of songs or move them around, but added to them and used effects to warp them. Hip-hop followed, using musical bits and bobs - including jazz, funk, soul – and individual sounds to create mix-tapes. Disco and house followed in the electronic arena. Since then, due to the availability of easy-to-use programs and easy and fast distribution across the net, the remix boom has resulted.

A wise man once told me that to create a worthwhile remix, you need to preserve the original with some kind of integrity, and that you should always treat someone else's art with respect. This seems like simple advice, but it seems that due to a lack of this necessary respect coupled with a general lack of skill (think Rihanna's voice just chucked over a cringeworthy "wob wob wob"), you have musical trainwrecks waiting to happen that would have left you running from Concrete Club crying about what some retard did to your favourite track from '09. And don't get me started on the copyright issues involved if the record label of the original artist hasn't commissioned them.

However many negative aspects there are belonging to the "remix generation", a movement can't be this strong without having benefits. First and foremost, people enjoy remixes – people's brains are programmed to connect with music they recognise, and when they get to a club drunk, there is nothing nicer than hearing something familiar, but also a little bit new and exciting. Remixes also give older songs a new lease of life, and draw more attention to less popular songs, giving the original artist more revenue. When a remix changes the genre of the track, a whole other group of listeners are attracted to the song. In a lot of instances, artists/electronic producers decide on who they want to work with their tracks and add these to their EPs or albums.

The world is full of tasteful, classy remixes. Some of my top picks include any James Blake remix, Jamie XX's remix of Gill Scott Heron's We're Here Now album, the Paparazzi remix of Crystal Fighters' "I Love London", as well as the Zed Bias remixes of Skream's track "Where You Should Be". Check them out before remixes get too bad a name.

The Word with Amy B – every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 12.30pm on RDU 98.5FM – check out www.facebook.com/thewordwithamyb to keep in the loop.