Justice Just Says No To Remixing Johnny Cash

Mixmag reports that Justice is taking a ‘Just Say No’ attitude towards remixing Johnny Cash.

The duo was recently approached to remix a classic Cash track.

“We were asked to do a Johnny Cash remix,” says Justice’s Gaspard Augé. “But it doesn’t make any sense.”

“When the song is already good, we can only make it worse.”

Or, as I put it a couple of years ago –  “Johnny Cash is one dead guy I wouldn’t want to piss off by making a crappy dance remix of his songs.”

What do you think of the trend of doing dance remixes of dead artists’ classic songs? Are the tracks fair game or should we let artists rest in peace?

14 thoughts on “Justice Just Says No To Remixing Johnny Cash

  1. I think that it’s a smart an honest decision on their part, but even if they decided to remix Cash or any other ‘classic untouchable’ artist I don’t think there should be a problem with it. It’s just music after all, and I think people tend to take it a little too seriously at times.

    1. It’s just music – but if Johnny Cash had wanted to put out at dance track or two before he died, he had plenty of opportunity.

      Doing it now is just a way for record companies to increase their take of sales of his music, don’t you think?

  2. Its nice to Know that theyre only up for remixing songs that are not already good. Im sure there are a few less than amazing gems in the johnny cash catalog that fit that criteria.

  3. Good move for them. The Johnny Cash remix cd that was released was pretty terrible (with the exception of Apparat’s remix) , but not as bad as Justice’s latest album.

  4. What? That is an absurd statement. Too good to remix? There is a certain ironic appeal to enhancing a song that sounds pathetic in its original form into a superior form, but that by no means discredits the value of using already wonderful music. Why would that status alter its usefulness in any way, and who the hell decides which music is “already good”? Was Soul/R&B absolute shit before hip hop got a hold of it?

    I can’t believe I have to state the obvious here, but to the contrary, excellent music has more to draw from. Rainy Day remixes took a brilliant album, talented artists, and made something that was uniquely beautiful. I’m not going to make any claims about what is better, because that would be pointless, but the world of music is enhanced by that works existence. Same with the Gray album. Are the Beatles not “untouchable”?

  5. The more powerful a piece of music is, the more likely it’s going to be mashed up in the culture and re-used.
    Can’t stop it.
    Because even a short sample carries so much information and feeling. And the Man in Black had plenty power in there. But, I do think anytime you approach an iconic thing it’s wise to be careful. Otherwise, you risk creating a novelty item. (see Deodato, Zarathustra, also: country disco) It’s all what fits. I think Cash, the Beatles, Led Zepplin, James Brown and Jabbo Starks all deserve some respect, ya know?
    So props to Justice for knowing their own limits.

  6. As a DJ, I understand that remixes are a part of our culture. The very best overtake the original in the collective consciousness because they take the source so far in a different direction that they create something completely new, and oftentimes beautiful. Listen to “The Light 3000” by Schneider TM – a cover of The Smiths – There is a Light That Never Goes Out, as a prime example. It retains all the melancholy and soul of the original track but takes the organic aspects in a digital direction . The worst remixes on the other hand simply throw a kick drum under an already popular recording, just to make it danceable. When you have an original track that touches people deeply, and someone mangles it for a few dollar it’s just crude. Justice have always done things on their own terms, they are true music lovers and did well to step away.

Leave a Reply