How do you list a remixer in an album's liner notes?

[oddcol]

Okay, I've recorded an EP for commercial release and have had one of the tracks remixed originally for use as a free give away. The problem is the remix track sounds sooooo much better than the original that I've decided to use the remix track as the actual EP recording and just scrap the original. This means that the remix is now the original mix so technically I can't list the remixer as a remixer as there is no remix.<<<yh, yh, OCD...

I usually write credits in the liner notes as:

Written by me.
Produced by X.
Engineered by Y.
Mixed by Z.

Bearing in mind that the remix is now the original finished tracks, where should I include the remixer in the album notes? Gut instinct says to list him as either a producer or a mixer but that kinda edges out the guys that done the work originally. Should I give him a writing credit? Alternatively should I list him as "arranements by..." or "additional mixing by..."

Sorry if this seems like a pointless question but for some reason it's really getting on my back.

Thxx.

[DiscoiD]

I would list the song as "Track X" DJ XYZ mix. Then in the liner notes, mention DJ XYZ's additional production work on Track X. That should cover it.

[djboomstick]

it's still a re-mix even if the origional is not released. you could give the remixer co-wrighting credits , if he/she added alot of parts to it besides remixing. . or giving credit near the name of the song or noteing it with a *

anyways , theres no harm in calling it a remix like you thought in the first place

[maleaco]

Song Name (Remixed by XXXX)

[jaivarsa]

I know, semi-old topic; but I would also mention it's a remix. Notice that that would instantly build curiosity about "where can one find the original mix". Perfect opportunity to include it in a special edition, iTunes download or single B-side right there.

[monkeyweasel]

I would also mention it's a remix. Notice that that would instantly build curiosity about "where can one find the original mix"

sounds to me like that is precisely scenario the OP is trying to avoid. if the remix is so much better, and the OP has decided to scrap the original, then creating curiosity about the original sounds like a mistake, as it might mean being pressured into releasing something the OP isnt happy with.

no different to a situation where Ive got a half finished track on my harddrive that I know has potential but cant seem to make work and so I decide to give it to a friend to play around with and we end up putting it out as a joint track. so personally I would just look at the original track as a work in progress, and the "remix" instead just becomes a collaborative work. that way u give the "remixer" a writing credit. end of story.

[cron]

Last thing my crew put out was a 4 track EP with two remixes commissioned for a flat fee. The vinyl version was the two remixes and the two original tracks that hadn't been remixed. Digital was all four originals plus the two remixes.

I don't think there's any pressure to have the original version of any remixed track on a release to be honest though. Also, the remix doesn't become the original solely because the original isn't present on the release. If dropping the original from the tracklist and replacing it with the remix make for a stronger release, do it and shout the remix on your tracklist with pride. Your audience only cares about the quality of the music. Nobody's going to break your door down demanding to hear the original. More likely they'll be impressed with your curatorial skills if the remixer you've selected has delivered something outstanding!

I'd just go for [Artist] - [Trackname] ([Remixer] remix)