I consider dance/techno/hip-hop/other remixes to be bastardisations of actual music, and anyone who calls themselves an artist when their work is mostly remixes does not deserve a place in the music industry. A band mixing their own work is acceptable, it's their own work and if they think it sounds better with a different mix then it's their prerogative. Those who think I'm a narrow minded moron or similar insult for such statements, consider this.
I have photoshop on my computer, and a copy of the Mona Lisa (not really, it's a hypothetical situation). I scan this copy into my computer, and use photoshop to alter the image, putting the face towards the bottom left, enlarging the nose to comical proportions, inverting the colours of the background and shrinking most of the body, maybe adding a little yellow smiley face somewhere. Does that make me an artist? Does it hell as like, it makes me a guy with photoshop making a work of art look crap. So, if I have a copy of The Summer of '69 on my computer, and a music editing program, and make the drums and bass louder and faster, make the guitar unnoticeable and edit the voice to a comical chipmunks-esque pitch, and maybe add a synthesised keyboard, how does that make me any more of an artist than if I screwed around with the Mona Lisa on photoshop?