I'm not trying to insult anyone (and even if I was it would pretty much be equally insulting to everyone present, lol), but I actually find this thread somewhat surreal. Why would a remix ever be intended or considered to be better than the original? I mean yeah, sometimes you can have a remix that's actually better, at least in someone's eyes, but that's rarely the point of a remix at all.
Remastering, rearranging... these are things that are typically done with the explicit intention of improving the song... and even then not everyone intends it even then. But remixing? 90% of the time remixing is just messing around with the song, having fun with it, and seeing what you can do with it. Take for example OverClocked ReMix. No one on that site is trying to improve or replace the original song. They're just using existing songs as a creative tool.
As far as the question of the thread goes... of course not. Of course the dubstep remixes are not better than the originals. They were never intended to be.
I hate to say this but dubstep doesn't seem to fit it very well.
Again, it's not always about fitting the song. Some remixes match the style of the original, and that's one way to go about it, but plenty of them mess around with the song and see what else they can do with it. It's not about fitting the original, nor improving it or replacing it.
U cannot kill the original. With the release of the 25th anniversary cd last year.... nothing beats an original.
... Bro the 25th Anniversary orchestral arrangements aren't the originals either.
![tongue :P :P](/forum/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/theme_icon3.gif)