Bollywood often recreates and remixes tracks, you may call them a tribute or lack of originality, but they often amount to the same result. Composers, singers and songwriters often pour in time, effort and talent into making a song. To recreate it takes guts and also requires nuance.

Masakali 2.0 was meant to give the original a facelift that would impress audiences. What it did is make a section of the audience wonder whether the recreation was even needed in the first place. AR Rahman was not happy about the new song, and Rangoli Chandel agrees.

AR Rahman reacts to Masakali 2.0

AR Rahman displeased with Masakali 2.0

Remixes have always divided the audience, and sometimes they seem unnecessary. Masakali 2.0 was meant to rekindle the magic of a track that took people to its happy place years ago in 2009. The feel-good song was not just about the music but the soulful lyrics. The song which was a work of much labour on part of Bollywood's most lauded composer AR Rahman, received high praise.

To take that song and remix it, is not the smartest idea. Masakali was recently released featuring Sidharth Malhotra and Tara Sutaria in the music video, and AR Rahman reacted to it. He was not pleased, instead, he wrote about what went into creating the original, "No short cuts, properly commissioned, sleepless nights, writes and re-writes. Over 200 musicians, 365 days of creative brainstorming with the aim to produce music that can last generations. A team of a Director, a Composer, and a Lyricist, supported by actors, dance directors and a relentless film crew. - Lots of love and prayers AR Rahman" 

That tweet speaks volumes compared to what Masakali 2.0 managed to do. Fans have already written on the song from their playlists. Added to it, Kangana Ranaut's sister Rangoli Chandel came on Twitter to slam the makers of the remix, with much more force and choice criticism and none of the mercy AR Rahman showed them, "Nothing worse for an artist when his/her genius work violently taken from them turned in to a cheap atrocious copy and sold for dimwits low IQ audience, art must cultivate the audience to enjoy fine work not ruin fine work to suit tacky gawar audience..."

The makers must be heart-broken, but they should have considered the consequences much before.