If a producer remixes (b) a musical piece (a) by another producer, they are often (in my experience) accredited as follows:

Original Producer - Original Title (a) (Remixing Producer's Remix (b))

Let's assume that the remix (b) contains both recognizable sounds from the original piece (a), as well as incorporates new sounds unique to this remix (b).

If a producer would be inspired by the sounds unique to the remix (b), and would like to make a remix (c) of that, how would accreditation play out, provided that the resulting remix (c) would be based on sounds from both (a) and (b)?

In my experience, it would be like:

Original Producer - Original Title (a) (Remixing Producer's Remix (c))

But this would not give proper credit to sound elements created by the producer of remix (b). However, I have never seen accrediting like this:

Original Producer - Original Title (a) (Remixing Producer's Remix (b)) (Remixing Producer's Remix (c))

This seems clunky and unclear.

1 Answer 1


Perhaps you could try

Original Song (a) ((b) vs. (c) Remix)

  • I like this approach. Would this still apply if you haven't actually worked together with producer of remix (b)? Commented Mar 17, 2014 at 19:57
  • To be honest, I'm not sure. Looking at this post from Sound.StackExchange, it looks like it's probably fine. sound.stackexchange.com/questions/27409/meaning-of-feat-pres-vs
    – Kevin
    Commented Mar 18, 2014 at 2:58
  • Thanks for that source. Since this SE is still in BETA it has relatively low activity. I will wait a little bit longer to see if anyone else has a good answer before accepting one. Commented Mar 18, 2014 at 10:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.