New live DVD/BD 'ARENA TOUR 2012 ~HLS~' March 8, last of five 15th anni. releases

[TeamAyu2004]

Originally Posted by Delirium-Zer0

*eyeroll*

"Covers" are by other people.
"Self-covers" (this is a common term used in j-pop by the way, "self-cover" albums are marketed as "self-cover" albums) are covers by the same person. (Hence the "self-" prefix. I don't even see how there's debate about this.)

A remix has only the instrumentation changed. A self-cover has the vocals changed, and usually the instrumentation changed also. A self-cover makes changes as though the artist, in their current form, is a different artist with different talents and artistic ideas and tastes. Which is kind of the truth. A self cover is usually useless if it's done only a year or so after the song originally came out because there's probably not gonna be much difference.

Here's a handy comparison chart:
A Song for XX "she shell REPRODUCTION" (remix) | A Song for XX "030213 Session #2" (self-cover)
Dearest "Depth nostalgic windmix" (remix) | Dearest "Acoustic Piano Version" (self-cover)
Endless sorrow "Natural Green dub mix" (remix) | Endless sorrow ~gone with the wind ver.~ (self-cover)
LOVE~Destiny~ "TODD'S LOVERS CONVERSION" (remix) | LOVE~Destiny~ (10th Anniversary Version) (self-cover)

I hope this makes it easy for everyone to understand so they can stop debating just for the sake of debating.

we could have done without the eye roll.
Yet again, another example of different opinions. everything you mentioned as self covers for ayumi are remixes in my book. The titles say it all... most of them are different versions, that to me has nothing to do with the original, which makes it a remix.
Anything that is different from the original is a remix, i guess call it what it want, its still the same person doing a different version of their song, which in the end is a remix.

also, i would like to point out this nice little article about remixes on wiki:

A remix is a song that has been edited to sound different from the original version. The person who remixed it might have changed the pitch of the singers' voice, changed the tempo and speed and has made the song shorter or longer, or instead of hearing just one person singing they might have duplicated the voice to make it sound like two people are singing, or make the voice echo.

and

Remixes should not be confused with edits, which usually involve shortening a final stereo master for marketing or broadcasting purposes. Another distinction should be made between a remix and a cover. A remix song recombines audio pieces from a recording to create an altered version of the song. A cover is a recording of a song that was previously recorded by someone else.

[BlackSilence]

*reads a page or two* i thought this thread was about the release of the DVD?

[maikaru]

Originally Posted by TeamAyu2004

we could have done without the eye roll.
Yet again, another example of different opinions. everything you mentioned as self covers for ayumi are remixes in my book. The titles say it all... most of them are different versions, that to me has nothing to do with the original, which makes it a remix.
Anything that is different from the original is a remix, i guess call it what it want, its still the same person doing a different version of their song, which in the end is a remix.

also, i would like to point out this nice little article about remixes on wiki:

and

http://music.goo.ne.jp/lyric/LYRUTND135351/index.html
http://www.amazon.co.jp/more-quality.../dp/B001FVNUL4
http://tennipri.tyent.jp/index.php/music/product/542

All of these products have "Self-Cover" in the title of it.

So unless you are an industry professional who can override the "naming" of these kinds of songs, they are Self-covers and not remixes.

Remixes are just that - re-mixing a song with previously existing tracks. There is no re-recording of the voice in any remix I have ever listened to. That would be simply a different version.

Take Whatever. They are two different recordings of the same melody and lyrics. They are not called remixes of each other, they are called versions.

A Best A Song for XX is not a remix in any form. It keeps the same instrumentation, but with changed vocals. Same with End Roll, and the others on the album. They are not marketed as remixes in any way, shape, or form.

So unfortunately, you are the only one in the planet who thinks like you do. All other Industry Professionals call these songs "Self-Covers" or "Version (insert title here)"

Originally Posted by Zeke.

I always wondered if the Acoustic version of Dearest had different vocals! It sounded slightly different to me so I am glad you have answered this question of mine without me ever having to ask it. Thanks!

Yeah, the voice is so different. Acoustic Version on the single is soft and delicate, and when she gets to the key change, she does some vocal adlibbing that is not found in the original track.

[TeamAyu2004]

Originally Posted by maikaru

All of these products have "Self-Cover" in the title of it.

So unless you are an industry professional who can override the "naming" of these kinds of songs, they are Self-covers and not remixes.

Remixes are just that - re-mixing a song with previously existing tracks. There is no re-recording of the voice in any remix I have ever listened to. That would be simply a different version.

Take Whatever. They are two different recordings of the same melody and lyrics. They are not called remixes of each other, they are called versions.

A Best A Song for XX is not a remix in any form. It keeps the same instrumentation, but with changed vocals. Same with End Roll, and the others on the album. They are not marketed as remixes in any way, shape, or form.

So unfortunately, you are the only one in the planet who thinks like you do. All other Industry Professionals call these songs "Self-Covers" or "Version (insert title here)"

Honestly Im completely over this subject, but since you felt the need to reply, I'll go along:

Just because someone tells you something doesnt make it true (there are TONS of examples where people come up with a gemic to sell their product, a so called self-cover is a gamic in that department, but it doesnt make the statement true.)... I have said over and over again, that this is the way I view it, you dont have too. And honestly people are wasting their time because im NOT going to change my mind for you. You can not self cover yourself. Anything you do with your own song after the fact is a remix.
I have already given the links to back up my thoughts, im not going to do it again.
And I'm glad you have contact with over 7 billion people to say that I'm the only one that thinks like this.
Thanks for clearing that up... although you may have forgotten a few people here and there(especially the people that think like me), but its all forgiven because, I mean, lets face it, 7 billion is a lot of people to ask about this.

I also like to point out that it appears that so called self covers seem to be an asian music scene kind o thing. I googled for a bit and it doesnt appear that the rest of the world do this, which also points to a gimic practice to try and sell something.
If someone can point out some other musical acts, besides asian acts that say they have so called 'self-covers' that would be nice as well.

[njanjayrp]

Originally Posted by TeamAyu2004

Honestly Im completely over this subject, but since you felt the need to reply, I'll go along:

Just because someone tells you something doesnt make it true (there are TONS of examples where people come up with a gemic to sell their product, a so called self-cover is a gamic in that department, but it doesnt make the statement true.)... I have said over and over again, that this is the way I view it, you dont have too. And honestly people are wasting their time because im NOT going to change my mind for you. You can not self cover yourself. Anything you do with your own song after the fact is a remix.
I have already given the links to back up my thoughts, im not going to do it again.
And I'm glad you have contact with over 7 billion people to say that I'm the only one that thinks like this.
Thanks for clearing that up... although you may have forgotten a few people here and there(especially the people that think like me), but its all forgiven because, I mean, lets face it, 7 billion is a lot of people to ask about this.

I also like to point out that it appears that so called self covers seem to be an asian music scene kind o thing. I googled for a bit and it doesnt appear that the rest of the world do this, which also points to a gimic practice to try and sell something.
If someone can point out some other musical acts, besides asian acts that say they have so called 'self-covers' that would be nice as well.

You're being stubborn as usual and about yet another petty thing. Ayumi Hamasaki is an Asian singer. It might be an Asian thing, but she is Asian therefor it applies to her as well. You can really think whatever you want to, but the fact is, self-cover albums exist and they aren't called remix albums in Japan/Asia, as those are completely different things as a couple of people have already tried to explain to you. If you're never ready to change your mind about things then what's the point in discussing them at all?

[kinix]

Originally Posted by TeamAyu2004;2968525
Just because someone tells you something doesnt make it true (there are TONS of examples where people come up with a gemic to sell their product, a so called self-cover is a gamic in that department, but it doesnt make the statement true.)... [B

I have said over and over again, that this is the way I view it, you dont have too. And honestly people are wasting their time because im NOT going to change my mind for you.[/B] You can not self cover yourself. Anything you do with your own song after the fact is a remix.
I have already given the links to back up my thoughts, im not going to do it again.
And I'm glad you have contact with over 7 billion people to say that I'm the only one that thinks like this .

Honestly, I'm glad that you've finally realise this!

Originally Posted by TeamAyu2004

*you still missed the point of the original post.*You and Me appeared on Best album before it appeared on original album.Thats the point. She has never done that before.So yes, your example is wrong.Also, it doesnt matter how you treat the mini's they were marketed as MINI's not singles... thats way some people are pissed.and SO WHAT if Rainbow was on another album, its a valid example. And satsugyo shashin being a cover means nothing.She sampled Memorial address/covered it and it appeared on an album... whats your point?

Originally Posted by TeamAyu2004

And how you treat the MINI's and singles DOESN'T matter when it comes to official statements about the mini's. All that matters is how avex and ayumi treated them which is what caused most of the backlash in the first place. It's not being rude. It's FACTS if you dont like it, that is your problem, no one else's. And quite frankly I was giving you MY opinion.

Either you've realise that or you're just contradicting yourself

[miru2590]

Originally Posted by TeamAyu2004

I have said over and over again, that this is the way I view it, you dont have too. And honestly people are wasting their time because im NOT going to change my mind for you.

Originally Posted by TeamAyu2004

^ it is interchangeable. I never told anybody that they are wrong in their thoughts, unlike some. Its just not the way I view it.

I agree


On another note I can't believe return road is not on the DVD. Has this been confirm???