This question is adressed to people who put out other people's music, wether it is on compilations or releases by other artists. How much control do you prefer to have over the material included in the final release, and how much artistic freedom is given to the artist?
When I've released things through other people I've never had the label interfering, but I also know of labels who on recieving a set of finished tracks would pick out the ones they didn't like and respond to the artist with something like "Remove this and that track and record a couple more tracks in the style of that and this and then we'll put this out". I think both approaches make sense, and usually I guess other things play in as well (if the label initiated contact or the other way around, the trust and relationship between the label and artist and so on... obviously open net comps are a whole different thing). But I would like to hear some opinions on this.
Quote from: hsv on October 01, 2012, 12:04:29 PM
This question is adressed to people who put out other people's music, wether it is on compilations or releases by other artists. How much control do you prefer to have over the material included in the final release, and how much artistic freedom is given to the artist?
I (as owner of a small label) don't limit artistic freedom but I give myself right to accept or reject music destined to issue. I have never suggested to an artist that one or two tracks are good, but the rest is shit and he should replace it. Besides I give myself right to accept quality of mastering. For example, lately I have some problems with reissue a material of LE SYNDICAT which was a little bit destroyed by "loudness war", clippings and so on. Although I was sured that it will come to happy end, the matter is complicated and I don't know what will be effect of that.
I think label boss should always by any means necessary to make sure release is good. And if it's not, just stay away from it.
Certainly if band has a strong vision, and the album REALLY is album, what can't be modified in any way, then most likely he can easily reply on questions of what the fuck is that lame track doing there?
But what I see based on many years of involvement, that vast majority of noise releases ain't really that focused. There are great number of artists who have attitude that releases are pretty much irrelevant as individual items, and they exists most of all as part of bigger body of work. Or the relaxed attitude towards smaller releases, that they simply don't have to be on level of "bigger releases". They may do bad choices because they didn't think further what it means if album is mastered by flattening everything digitally. Or that some tracks sound like crappy mp3 transfers due cheap effects and they may have only thought "that'll be fine".
As label who would like each release to matter, canceling release and demanding better, or removing some of material or asking it to be re-worked should be mandatory. What kind of label would be just outlet for whatever junk is given to them?
No artists has to accept any of the demand - but as said, I believe not so many believe this release they just sent to label was genre re-defining masterpiece, above all the criticism and most of all perfect beyond possibilities to improve.
Most likely upon criticism & suggestion, they simply realize it wasn't good enough. It wasn't best they can do, and at least not as good as they easily could do. Then question remains, will artist think "I can do better, but I won't bother". Or will he accept the challenge of actually making good release?
I'm sure there is no use to stay making minor changes over and over and over again, only to realize the spontaneous energy was superior to years of adjusting. Yet I think there is some good possibilities between the extremes.
I don't think good art is born out of kind of hippie workshop type of environment, where "all is good". That just guys having common hobby is somehow great thing. For labels, the work should be finding & polishing the diamonds. If label doesn't do its job, then whole idea of "record label" loses meaning.
I have cancelled releases, I have cut away tracks, I have re-mastered, I have asked for new work submitted when previous didn't appear to be good. And this policy is for all, big and small. List of cancelled offers include guaranteed best-sellers a'la Prurient or Bizarre Uproar. But as a label who has vision, I need to follow this instinct rather than worry will I hurt some artists feelings or lose little bit of guaranteed income.
As artist, do I accept changes or criticism? I have accepted some, but since I most of all release work myself, haven't been so many incidents. But I can tell: I would have been extremely thankful of some of my past releases would have received criticism they deserved - and I wouldn't have to see the flaws many years later, but could have done something about it...
Maybe it isn't too close connected to main theme of this thread but I recalled something what can be considered about freedom for artists. I noted that some composers (in noise/pe/industrial genres) aren't able to do or don't want to face with imposed topics by owner of label. I tried to prepare concept releases in the past and usually only several people wanted to do anything to main topic. So I have appreciated very much CALIGULA031's idea about concept album. Most of composers don't want to face or think something more about their music which could be long story/sound illustration focused on one problem. Better doing, for them, very abstract, random music which is only nameless piece of sound shit.
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on October 01, 2012, 02:39:30 PM
I think label boss should always by any means necessary to make sure release is good. And if it's not, just stay away from it....
Well most of what you're saying is pretty common sense. I assume most labels have that as a foundation but then it differs on how clear vision and concept a label has, how discerning the person in charge is, if they're good at saying no or get very influenced by economic and social situations, etc. Maybe there are some labels that have what you describe as a more hippie workshop mentality, but I guess not a lot of people will respond to this thread and say they deliberately release bad stuff, haha... but maybe some operators would say that if for example 1 track out of 10 is kinda bad and the rest are good, they don't interfere in it.
If at certain moment release feels like the best thing out there, but artists does even better next release of course it might change the view later on. I think this might be one thing what affects: Does the label boss have ability to compare and put in context?
Can you rate release that it's fairly good from clean table, but absolutely nothing when compared to same artists highlights? Do you have time and interest to give it test listening over longer periods of time and so many times you are fully convinced? Is it ok'ish blast of noise? If this band had now 5 releases out in half year and the one you're doing is decent, yet the crappiest compared to rest? If the material felt strong at first listen, but lacking depth when giving it another spin - not to mention 10 or 20 playtimes!
Quality control would be obviously a difficult question - since what exactly it means? That material is so good it kicks ass right now? Or that it is unique? That it can survive test of time & nearly endless rotation in your stereos? How you can measure it if label operates in haste? In recent history of my label I have had releases which I simply needed more than half year and more than handful of playtimes to convince it's superiority. I new from start it is good, but how good and is it good enough - it might not be matter you can decide over weekend. But the question remains - how much "quality control" should each release have? Perhaps not all meant to be on same level.
one "problem" is of course, what is good and what is bad? something the label owner like must not be the same thing the artist like. or otherwise, when an artist make a track and is satisfied with it and the track is what it should be, for 99% it maybe just a lousy track then, but why should he hear of 99% of the others. for what is the music, for yourself or for others?
i make the stuff in first direction for me and nobody else. if somebody like it, its nice but it won't hurt me if nobody likes it. otherwise i'm don't need money from it, so i won't care about "quality of sales"
I would think the simple overall rule would be: You make music for yourself. You release the stuff for others. Or would someone try to claim their edition of hundreds of CD's is "just for me"? That's just pure joke. Copies you make, in intent to sell and distribute to other people is by definition - made for others.
Artist can make (and should make!) as much as he wants, of any quality he wants. Labels job is different. It's role has traditionally been the curator and distributor what enables "the other people" to get the best of the artist. I may be wrong, but that's how I seen it.
Good and bad aren't necessarily abstractions. Like in any art, we can approach it by analysis. It can be by comparison to artists other output or material in general. And of course most of all your own tastes as publisher.
It would be foolish to say there is no "good" and "bad", since as label boss it's pretty much the role to decide what is good. If one suggest we are not able to know this, because someone somewhere may have "other tastes", then I guess we simply reject any possibility of quality existing?
I think it's too loud to call terror a label, but anyways I'll add my two cents. Most of the time I am offering to do a release so that I can be sure to work with people who are someone I know etc. That's why the first thing when I get material, after listening to it, I must decide - "would I enjoy listening to this record myself or not". I asked this several artists when I was in doubt. There is no need to release something that you wouldn't enjoy listening yourself. And I like to go into discussions with artists - do they sincerely find it enjoyable, why and so on. In a friendly discussion you can come to conclusion that something is wrong with some sounds or you can see that artist defends his position and reject him or accept or whatever. I don't like stubbornness and I don't want all artists to fit into some sort of my imaginary picture. variety is great, especially when it's enjoyable.
some similar thing was when we was slowly looking for the label to release first Budrus cd. we met with one label boss and his remarks was that he does not like some sounds from that minute to that minute, vocals in this and that place was bad, put on some effects to correct these and so on. So then after that we released it ourselves. It appeared that the guy didn't catch the conception at all. He was just annoyed by some sounds that he didn't like at all.
As for quality existing - I don't know any means or units to measure quality apart from personal ones so overall quality in music apart from personal views is non-existent.
I've had suggestions from labels on how a product that already was deemed as good, could be made better with slight changes in the mix. Once asked to change individual track titles, which in the end was a good idea. Mixing could be a technical issue as well - too much bass for vinyl cuts for example, or too long tracks. Merely editing suggestions, and I welcome that because it proves that the label actually cares about improving the release, without invading on the "artistic vision" or disrespecting it.
What I like gets released. Sometimes it's the music, sometimes it's the person, sometimes both. The music has to be at least interesting or promising. Same goes for the artist/person. There is no chance of a release if the person lacks certain manners, good intentions and work ethic. I have released people in the past whose music interested me less than the way they've presented themselves. The only two real criteria for Unrest are:
1. Make music that is at least interesting or promising.
2. Don't be a cunt. Aim to be a genuine friend.
Very simple criteria. Still, many fail. On occasion some with less honourable intentions have snuck in but they always fall by the wayside soon enough. I'm not complaining. At this moment I'm flanked by good and loyal people. Have been for a while and very grateful for it. My ears are always open to those who live up to the two above stated criteria.
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on October 01, 2012, 06:23:08 PM
I would think the simple overall rule would be: You make music for yourself. You release the stuff for others. Or would someone try to claim their edition of hundreds of CD's is "just for me"? That's just pure joke. Copies you make, in intent to sell and distribute to other people is by definition - made for others.
Artist can make (and should make!) as much as he wants, of any quality he wants. Labels job is different. It's role has traditionally been the curator and distributor what enables "the other people" to get the best of the artist. I may be wrong, but that's how I seen it.
Good and bad aren't necessarily abstractions. Like in any art, we can approach it by analysis. It can be by comparison to artists other output or material in general. And of course most of all your own tastes as publisher.
It would be foolish to say there is no "good" and "bad", since as label boss it's pretty much the role to decide what is good. If one suggest we are not able to know this, because someone somewhere may have "other tastes", then I guess we simply reject any possibility of quality existing?
first, i don't think you can use the term "quality" in noise or abstract music general. would you really claim that for example each merzbow release is "good quality" and where to make the point that this one is good and that one is not good? you can only judge for sales, namedrobbing or own personal taste. surely as label owner who needs money back and must look for sales, the standarts are total different than a label who doesn't care about sales, but i see no point that the first one should make better "quality" than the second one. the intention for a label can be (this is my view about what a label should be) just spreading the music since the owner beliefe that the music is good. for example i released an experimental bm demo , where i know that the sales won't get the money in. but i fucking like the music and i think that someone else could also like the music. so i think you can use quality standarts, where no "own taste" exists. In mechanics, in math or maybe also in music theory. but not in an subculture where only the own taste matters to most people. do you really think that someone reject a release just cause someone else tells him, thats no good standart?
and i don't understand why an artist should make what he want and a Label should not.
i for myself put out the music i like. thats important.
Quote from: Levas on October 01, 2012, 07:08:01 PM
As for quality existing - I don't know any means or units to measure quality apart from personal ones so overall quality in music apart from personal views is non-existent.
"Quality has no specific meaning unless related to a specific function and/or object. Quality is a perceptual, conditional and somewhat subjective attribute."
"The characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs"
I doubt many have idea of "I want something ordinary, what everybody is making, what sounds like it's done in haste & with no ideas", hah...
Quote from: FreakAnimalIt would be foolish to say there is no "good" and "bad", since as label boss it's pretty much the role to decide what is good.
Of course I should have clarified, quality can be measure when my intention as label is for example to produce album from artists, where their particular album is worth owning because:
1) It is at least as strong, if not stronger than other titles in his output.
2) Or it may be somehow freshly different or innovative, and despite lack of undisputed excellency, it is worth owning and listening for giving alternative new angle.
3) It stands out as relatively unique album. So it could not be simply substituted by picking random piece of noise - which is almost identical. But has some personality and identity.
+ personal reasons as:
4) It awakes some kind of emotion of feeling.
5) It is most often by artist who's back-catalogue is not too massive or artists who build his "career" on other labels (this fits to FA, obviously IR has other criteria).
6) Artist most often has shown certain loyalty, to stick with label for more than one release, to be committed on doing & perfecting his craft.
7) Almost without exception, basic rule has been to know and to have meet the artist face-to-face in real life. Or other ways been in touch more than just "receiving promo".
...and so on.
Quality control would obviously mean that release needs to meet these standards.
Quality control could not happen, unless you have set functions it has to fulfill. If label has no idea what he wants to achieve OR basically anything goes, then one could agree label has no quality control OR the level of quality control is very low.
Even if being subjective, I have noticed than many albums that is considered to be artists best - there is often collective agreement. If not 100% agreement, then at least something what could be measure by statistics. This can be also noticed from suggestions of what kind of titles should be for example in "canon of power electronics". Even if we reject possibility for accurate measurement of quality - very often we end up rating specific releases great - and some others of much lesser. This can go beyond personal taste: Not liking something, but acknowledging it's undisputed achievements.
Quote from: Goat93 on October 01, 2012, 09:19:41 PM
would you really claim that for example each merzbow release is "good quality" and where to make the point that this one is good and that one is not good?
I would not claim each Merzbow is good quality. Exactly opposite. Why some release becomes classic, and other release ends up collecting dust in distro's dead-stock boxes. Why particular Merzbow CD pressed 500 copies is priced 50 euro, while other CD pressed 500 copies doesn't interest anyone. We can easily say: There are good and bad ones. And this is not just one guys stubborn attitude, but so dominant view one can observe what kind of quality expectations people would have.
Quote from: Goat93 on October 01, 2012, 09:19:41 PM
and i don't understand why an artist should make what he want and a Label should not.
Artist makes, does mean he has to release it. You as artist experiment, try, repeat over and over again, fail miserably, succeed and triumph, and perfect your craft. How much of artists "diary" we need to follow? Therefore there is label, who with (hopefully) expert opinion (don't take it too self important praise, just read: guy who has ability to put material in perspective) know what is worth putting out and in what magnitude.
If label is there doing "whatever", that simply translates by definition:
No quality control. If that's ok, then be it. I tend to favor and praise those labels and those releases what without doubt went through serious quality check. Artists and labels.
QuoteQuality is a perceptual, conditional and somewhat subjective attribute.
yes. i agree with that. but just not having universal meaning of quality that everyone understands the same (like meter, liter etc.), is quite difficult when discussing these topics.
The thing with being a friend or somebody that was/is in touch is very important. And it's not "releasing this because he is such a cool dude", but evaluating his music perhaps with better understanding and overall context and not only "linear notes" of the record. This is where I am slightly uncomfortable using the word "label" since this is such a wide term. Label is the one releasing floppies and label is the one releasing 18xLP boxes too
In my (limited) experience running a label, I controlled very little of the audio side of things, instead leaving this to the artists. For the most part, this worked out ok I think, only one release I had to push back on to sort out some quality issues with one particular track that felt like it had been sent to me on the master without any kind of critical review by the artist(s). When the revised version landed, it was still not perfect but naive eagerness on my part gave it a green light; as part of the overall package, it ended up fitting ok. One release, in retrospect, I do not particularly care for and certainly side-by-side with other material from the same artist(s) is their weakest... I guess it was down to a degree of feeling obligated for a couple of reasons, which was pretty stupid really but it was an experience I would learn from if I started up a label again.
Art and design on the other hand, I had a lot more control over - layout and package was down to me on all releases ultimately (the main exception being IFOTS' The Power Of September for which Lee sent a hand-crafted prototype that ended up very similar in many respects to the final release). Again on one of the aforementioned releases above, I had to push back on the artwork submitted by one of the artist(s) as, although they had someone draw it up for them (I do not know to this day whether it was financed or not) it was not to the standard I was looking for. I never once felt guilty for rejecting artwork or felt like I was taking over in this - in all but the last case mentioned, everyone I worked with was (I believe) happy with any art or layout suggestions I put forward.
Quote from: Levas on October 01, 2012, 10:05:18 PM
QuoteQuality is a perceptual, conditional and somewhat subjective attribute.
yes. i agree with that. but just not having universal meaning of quality that everyone understands the same (like meter, liter etc.), is quite difficult when discussing these topics.
It may be difficult, but as its done in just about every field of culture and every style of expression, I don't think noise is somehow utterly different from everything else.
It wouldn't have to go to discussion whether something is good or bad. It would be merely about people knowing what are measures that constitute "quality
control".
Lets say you got liquid, which has alcohol in it - you can drink it, and it does its job. Regardless is it "good quality" or not. It won't matter if different people consider different things good. Lets say strength (= % of alcohol) as only measure of whether it's worthy of drink. Or perhaps strength itself irrelevant, when it's main purpose alcohol is to enhance taste experience. And what if taste is necessary to be sweet - or utterly pungent and smoky? It's up to personal taste whether you like something or not, BUT it's up to quality control if originally set expectation/function is fulfilled. And the people will return over and over and over again to something where quality standard is high. As opposed to keep trying something where quality standard is whatever. If you can't accurately measure anyone taste, you can observe other things:
-Is there quality control at all, or is it low (= anything goes, based on temporary wish to do whatever feel fine at that moment, and results which are quite ok, but really not that excellent, will pass into production).
-If these is clear quality control, did it work out or fail (there is expectation & promise of something, but does the releases
actually meet such expectations)
We live in world, what embraces consumption. We live in cultural climate where every individualists creation automatically is rated somehow valuable - and this whole postmodern approach tries to remove possibility of any meaning and value of anything.
It leads often to situation, that we are being sold stuff we don't want or need, by people who could do better, but won't bother. It is valid for whatever consumer product you can think of. It doesn't matter do you buy sausage, beer, microwave owen, cellphone, photobook, movie or noise release. You got someone offering you product-line of tempting items.
I don't know ANY record collectors who's collection would constitute only very top-of-the-game milestones. We all are satisfied also lesser achievements what clutter in our shelves and are streaming from stereospeakers, when it simply suits the purpose. We are ok with 72dpi inkjet poster of photo, what as good quality was supposed to be platinum contact print of original film. We are ok with mp3 file of album, even if it as best quality appeared as uncompressed analogue format. We are ok with food created of industrial waste, as long as it's deep-fried to look ok'ish. We're ok to sit in front of TV, since something is
on. We accept shallow charcoal copies. We accept plagiarism. We accept identity theft. We accept all kinds of compromise just to have one less thing to think about. So to be part of regular current of life - it's up to oneself to be proud or repulsed.
But somewhere below all these things doing their best to approval of living in middle of glorification of "whatever dude" -climate, exists also people who will not accept. And even if there is probably endless stream of lucky incidents, what can be found in canon of art - there is also found the talent, visionaries, people committed experiments, people committed to reaching higher, etc. I certainly regret too relaxed attitudes in some ways - meaning my own works. I know I could have done better, but didn't bother, since it appeared to be "enough". In some cases this can open the "writers block" and lead to better things, but as never-ending drain of compromises, probably not.
It could be interesting survey to check out what are without doubt most listened noise albums by people - and how many times you'd generally listen to it. I'm sure it's connected party to high profile and availability of release and time when person got the release... But not totally. Lets say why Pulse Demon of Merzbow appears to be so much more worshipped than Tauromachine?
Can it be that good quality noise album awakes reaction "great fucking album! I will never listen it again" (reasons being, it wasn't that good afterall or it's similar to a lot of stuff, so instead to relistening, you can just listen something else). Or "great fucking album! I have listened this every week for year, and still kills". Despite personal tastes, I would assume there are certain bands and their certain records which simply are so much better. And there are some labels who simply had much more such releases than other labels. It can lead to conclusions of some people having more quality control and therefore more focused results which survive better test of time and temporary trends & moods.
One should ad, that it can be tough time to admit we all can't measure quality. You ask me what is good quality wine, and I can't tell you. Pretty much everything tastes the same to me. But I will not declare it's all the same and there couldn't be found quality & lack of quality. I can admit I would merely drink it as last option of getting drunk and that's all I know. Therefore I also realize if I would have company related to wine manufacturing or distribution, it would most likely be inferior to most.
QuoteYou ask me what is good quality wine, and I can't tell you.
yeah. good comparison with wine. This might be the thing why we are talking in slightly different planes.
I mean you are no expert in wine, neither am I. We agree that this bottle of wine is good and then the expert comes and says "wow you are drinking some piss". Because he is some sort of expert, he knows what qualities to look for in the wine, his taste receptors gives him different conclusions than ours and so on. But does this mean that me or you should start disliking the wine that we just enjoyed just because someone told us that it is bad quality? No.
Now to put this in the noise context -
* there are labels have no control (comparison with alcohol: "oh, this is parfume, let's drink, oh this is dish-washer, let's drink, oh this has some %, let's drink")
* There are labels that control quality in some sort of personal way (comparison with alcohol: "I don't know what this wine is, but it sure is tasty and I'm getting dizzy already. My friend made this wine. Most of the people won't like it perhaps, but he's a good guy, I'll bring a bottle or two to a party")
* And there are labels that are I think those well established ones. That perhaps follows not only the sales happening, but also sees more deeply in people who has talent and so on (comparison with alcohol: "this is chardonnay 1978 from Tunguska. This is very rare, very good quality wine. Sometimes it shines because it's radioactive, but it's totally worth my money")
I read the latest posts and I don't understand where is problem. Is problem that somebody could have different opinion about, for example FOSSILS and LETTERA 22? I like "Tauromachine" very much and "Pulse Demon" too. Maybe, this first is better, but I know people who prefer digital era of MERZBOW. Ok, we can say that hipster American "dude", who is 20 old, listened as many noise records in his life as I do in one day, but who has right to question "dude's" sensitivity, impressions, even if we think that 20 old boy is stupid and he hasn't listened/been guy from our circle. Of course, somebody may say, that everyone has, but we are in post-avantgarde music/art. Here aren't any criteria of HIGH ART. People could and did these criteria in classical music. It worked then. But now? If we take, for example, one criteria in music: COMPLICATED (VARIED) FORM/SOUND. How we can consider minimal music in that? MORPHOGENIS or MERZBOW should be better (more valuable) than Thomas KOENER, Andrew CHALK or Tony CONRAD? Maybe JULIUS' noise music is not fine because he used only one sound, but MERZBOW uses 100 sounds in one minute? Sometimes we like minimal PE from the begining of WHITEHOUSE, but next time we talk that FLUTWACHT is poor in used cacophonous sounds. Where are rules? Where are criteria? Only one criteria is- this is our mind, our sensitivity, not more, not any academical rules or scholastic "trues". If we accept the truism that every man is different, we should accept that everybody can receive music/art in his way and this way shouldn't be worse or less valuable than our.
Of course, somebody can think that other people are stupid, they eat in McDonalds, watching stupid TV or listening hip hop in school or in job and so on. and think then: how they are able to listen valuable noise/industrial music? Whats more, how they can talk what is important in music/art? Yes, they can and their point of view is such important as ours, even if we think that our live is more essential than theirs. But, how many from us, in ordinary day use social/cultural values/institution/objects/consumerism which we condemn hipsters or so called "normal people"?
Conclusion? Maybe my view is come from my hate to authorities... Yeah, I don't care about that and I have always fucked people who, especially in music or art, talked to me what is good or not good. I don't need such people in my life. I am sured that every man is able to find his path, even in looking for new areas in music/art.
i often see that a term for quality is a big name. merzbow must be good, since its merzbow. if someone else put out this, it is shit but so long merzbow is on the cover it must be good. this attitude is in each "selfclaimed elitism" scenes, specialy in black metal, neofolk and of course in noise/power electronics. how much hears the bands cause of the image they produce?
as example, and maybe i understand it better with the answer. why where there a northern heritage rerelease of idljarn - forest poetry on cd, since the quality of the music where told in most cases as shit, the cds went as 5DM or gifts from napalm records back in time and nearly nobody cared about this band for years. so where are the "quality control" here? put out a cd from a band with quality poor music and rerelease this also? don't missunderstand me, since ildjarn is one of my favorite bands but i hear the stuff since ages and know best the reactions of this music. but this is, what i wanted to say. would ildjarn be better when it sounds like emperor, cause someone used a "quality control" check? i have had endless discussions with selfclaimed "quality checker" who doesn't understand that this and that moved me more than the big names, so maybe i have just an aversion against quality checks
Quality control isn't (or shouldn't be) about picking big names over unknown ones. Nor is it about telling people (the consumers) what is good and what is not. It is an internal process within the label where you make sure that, once you've decided to release a certain artist's work, the release is relevant. That it is a release that needs to be made available, that isn't weak when compared to artist's other output, or label's output, for that matter. The choice which artist to release, I guess, would be more based on personal taste, but quality control of the material would be more a case of comparing to the artist's previous work, how the material holds after a lot of listenings, etc. It will never be completely free of personal bias, but it's a lot more objective than saying "this artist is good, but that artist sucks".
I feel artists should have a similar quality control process. But, in the end it is the label that is responsible for what it releases.
Most of the labels I tend to follow are ones that I either know, or think, have quite high standards when it comes to quality, and who aren't afraid to tell artists they can do better, if that's the case.
Quote from: ImpulsyStetoskopu on October 02, 2012, 12:05:11 PM
I read the latest posts and I don't understand where is problem. Is problem that somebody could have different opinion
Quote from: Ritual on October 02, 2012, 07:03:33 PM
Quality control --- It is an internal process within the label where you make sure that, once you've decided to release a certain artist's work, the release is relevant. That it is a release that needs to be made available, that isn't weak when compared to artist's other output, or label's output, for that matter.
As said, we don't really need to measure what is "good" or "bad" based on universal values, but only possibility how we can: The aim & taste of label (or artists or preferably combination). This is what the first message of topic asked. Can label interfere artists work and to what extent - as aim to control the quality (according level & intent of label)?
I guess just about everybody has come to conclusion of there is way too much bad uninspiring noise. It is the most common complaint to be heard. And as buying customer, you end up noticing that there is simply too much useless garbage compared to exceptionally good releases. It is not solely matter of "taste", but that work of all styles, all approaches, has been lowered level of what should be released to public, and what is merely sketch or experiment.
If we look back in history of music, I tend to think it wasn't too many years ago, when the dominating climate was that you got enthusiastic, researched, learned, rehearsed, started doing demo recordings, found out good things by trial and error. Got someone interested, and he put out your best stuff, and this album what was result, was more or less culmination of utmost quality control.
Now, it seems almost like a lot of people lost all the perspective, and simply externalized decisions to listener. You know, "people might love or hate, who cares, I'll just put out unedited jam or rehearsal tape out". What's the problem? The problem is the lack of artistic vision. Do you really want to be the guy, who is waiting mouth open below someones asshole, waiting that within random feces, emerges suddenly interesting things - yet it's purely your work to find out. That "artists" or "label" didn't give a fuck, other than expectation that you paid full price? And they expect it on regular basis, with no guarantee they cared is it even stuff they'd bother to listen twice.
If I pay the price, I expect them do their work - meaning the least I can ask: Give me your best stuff according to your skill and taste. Don't give me pile of random crap and hope I might or might not tell you is it good or not.
The alcohol comparison remains decent. In deed, I thought whiskey was ok'ish, when I was drinking some low level blends. Yet the first time I actually got to taste the master works of single malt isley whiskey, I was blown away. And these brands wouldn't be good because they are expensive and popular, but they are expensive and popular because they are good. They perfected the methods, subtle tastes, valuing highest possible standard in everything.
I don't believe good art is born out of ideas such as "equality". If we accept that every man is different and they have their independent taste, I can't see why conclusion would be aim for nothing, since nothing matters and it's all relative? But rather aim for highest, strongest and best, and don't let the demoralizing concepts like equality or relativism restrict this intent. It is of course matter of ideology (in my case). I don't see any point in glorification or acceptance of submitting to mediocre. Even if you would be one - the attempt to be more is mandatory. This energy most likely spices up mediocre stuff notch up, making it worth of your time.
In this context, it is easy to ask oneself, do I have (high) quality control, and if not, what does it mean? If I think I don't need to have quality control since audience may or may not like it anyway, I guess it simply tells something about artistic integrity?
Why I would rant about it so much? Because I think whole genre (but also many other music styles) have taken entirely wrong path. If there would be small possibility one could encourage handful of people to acknowledge another way, we might have in our hand next year several brilliant new noise masterpieces, instead of 100 mediocre releases by same people. As listener and fanatic, I sincerely hope first option!
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on October 02, 2012, 08:08:42 PM
I guess just about everybody has come to conclusion of there is way too much bad uninspiring noise. It is the most common complaint to be heard.
Yes, but still we haven't any criteria and we flunder into double value standards and fake reality. For example, is The NEW BLOCKADERS as good project as people are saying really? Why their music is so high understimated and for example REJET's music not? Because they were one of the first who used antimusic? So what is preferable, quality of music, or who was the first in genre? I thought we consider music not time when the music was made... You write that at the moment noise is too much bad unispiring, and 20 or 30 years ago wasn't ? Then were 20 projects, now is 200. Then were 5 very good projects, 5 bad and the rest bog-standard, now is still 5 very good, 50 bad and the rest bog-standard. I don't care about bad or bog-standard, I like listening everyone of them, though I see difference between, for example, MAAA and SMELL AND QUIM. But we should respect younger generation for whom younger projects are most valuable than elder. And don't ask me why they prefer more MAAA than SMELL AND QUIM.... maybe those younger people have more in common with MAAA... and this is the next stupid criteria - "spirit of time"...
Quote from: ImpulsyStetoskopu on October 02, 2012, 09:19:34 PMFor example, is The NEW BLOCKADERS as good project as people are saying really?
By what "they" displayed at the BF fest, no. Merzbow is hardy a sign of quality control either. On the contrary. That name with it's massive and often sloppy catalogue is a reason to avoid anything bearing its name.
There are a lot of old so called legends who need to take a tumble and stop clogging up for those more willing and capable. Not all of them, but plenty enough.
Quote from: ImpulsyStetoskopu on October 02, 2012, 09:19:34 PM
For example, is The NEW BLOCKADERS as good project as people are saying really?
So, should I read this that you suggest TNB isn't as good as people are saying? Doesn't it mean then you acknowledge they are no more as good as they used to be? Therefore you can value their quality despite other peoples opinion - based on hearing their superior old works AND amazing new bands and comparing what they are now.
Anyways, isn't it quite common view lately that many TNB new works (or collaborations) do not meet the quality of their older works? But instead of labels saying "no, this is not as good as you could do, I can't put it out like this" they will be "oh yes, lets do it!!!"... wouldn't it be indication of lack of quality control?
It is not question of should we favor big legends and forget new bands. I guess many have said what most of these old legends are doing now, is nothing but weak shadow of their glory days. Accepting the weak releases due status or selling-potential would mean lack of quality control. And is exactly moment when label should have guts to say to artist; "can't you really do any better than THIS?! I trust you can do better, since you have done it and part of album show you still can if you want". Label may accept mediocre, since they want to be involved with specific artists and that's all they get. Artists will accept this level since nobody pushes and encourages him go further. It is unfortunate reality.
It should be understood, quality control ain't about throwing shit at you. It ain't about telling you're worthless and never be anything. It's encouragement to go further. Aim higher. Do better. There is very little else to gain in noise than making a good release. In the end remains nothing but legacy of art. I wouldn't want to leave behind documents of
not even trying and not even caring.
Quote from: ImpulsyStetoskopu on October 02, 2012, 09:19:34 PMBut we should respect younger generation for whom younger projects are most valuable than elder. And don't ask me why they prefer more MAAA than SMELL AND QUIM.... maybe those younger people have more in common with MAAA... and this is the next stupid criteria - "spirit of time"...
This is an interesting point to me. I would probably count as younger person and my listening habits I'm heavily biased toward new, active and local bands, against established acts that "everyone knows is good". Not that one cancels out the other, but I could see that if I ran a label, I would probably (half unconsciously) lower my quality control for young up-n-coming bands that I think should be encouraged to continue (provided they have an attitude, style etc. that I appreciate, which in itself is a form of quality control I guess). Kinda trying to cultivate the type of music scene I would like to partake in.
Though one can of course be encouraging through constructive criticism as well, without necessarily having to make a product of it... I remember when I was 14-15 and released my first tape and a couple of old noise guys contacted me and wanted to buy a copy, also returning with some constructive criticism afterwards. That was a great encouragement in and of itself, without offers for releases...
well, one record where definitely has been no quality control at all is that gruesome K2 cd on ground fault... goddam, talk about milking the famous name!! if anyone wants that one its free to have, just pay the postage. no wait... i'd rather glue it to the sidewalk so that no one hears it >:(
that would be quality control haha!!
(make no mistake here: i love K2!)
I continue to be amazed by this notion of good/bad not existing in noise. I don't see the fundamental difference between noise and, say, rock, pop and metal. Does good/bad also not exist in those genres? Is there no difference in quality between Black Sabbath and a 3rd rate stoner band from Finland? And if there is, why doesn't the same thing exist for noise? Just because rock is based on rhythm, melody and harmony? But do most people value music based on these analytical concepts? I would say no, most people (certainly me) value music by the emotional and/or visceral effect it has on them. Something that transcends music theory and analytical concepts. And still we mostly agree that such things as good and bad rock'n'roll exist.
Of course the quality of rock or noise is subjective, depends on ones taste. But I would argue that there are not infinite amount of tastes out there. Within a genre or sub-genre some universalities appear over time, some things are generally considered to be superior by most people. Thus the worship of certain albums by Merzbow, TNB, Incapacitants etc. Obviously there will be people who will loathe these same artists but how is that different to mainstream genres of music? Not every rock-fan likes Bruce Springsteen. But the people who do, will mostly agree that The Ghost of Tom Joad is inferior to Darkness on the Edge of Town or The Wild, the Innocent & the E Street Shuffle.
Quote from: heretogo on October 03, 2012, 09:44:44 AM
Does good/bad also not exist in those genres? Is there no difference in quality between Black Sabbath and a 3rd rate stoner band from Finland?
Sometimes are differences. For example: BLACK SABBATH vs. BUDGIE. Always that second one was in the shadow of BLACK SABBATH. It said that BUDGIE were worse, but really it was worse? In my opinion - not. The second example - PINK FLOYD. I know little known German (from 80s, from DDR) group called GALAXOO. They played psychedelic music and were linked to PF, but, in my opinion this band was better in rock psychodelia than Pink Floyd. The same with HAWKWIND, and many, many groups from krautrock and not known groups from exotic countries, such like Poland, for example, the great band LABORATORIUM. Anybody did/do know this band from Western Europe? Probably only Steven STAPLETON, who had/have LP records of this group. Of course there are many groups that wanted played like their idols and they weren't able or they didn't want to show their charisma, unique, fresh ideas in music. But many of those acts created better and better music, maybe not in context of unique, but technically, what sometimes was better than in case of their idols. Besides, who said that only "unique" project should be listened by people? Did/do CONSUMER ELECTRONICS play unique PE? In my opinion not, but this project is presented and claimed as STAR and big name in PE. Why? Because P. BEST was the second or third person who used extreme electronics? So, was he unique act or not? If not, what part of his music was so good that he is better than FUNCTIONAL DISORDER, DOMINATOR or MOURMANSK150?
But what does the above have to do with the existence of quality in music? Of course there will always be obscure bands that fanatics consider to be better than the "big names", for a variety of reasons. And just because stars emerge within genres does not mean that the concept of quality is flawed, even if the stars do not always produce unambiguously better music than everybody else. Important point is not that Philip Best kicks ass over everyone else but that he seems to produce (on average) quite inspiring and powerful music. Better than the average PE if you ask me.
Yeah, I was just about to say, that great music existing, doesn't mean there couldn't be other great bands. It should not be about comparing which is better quality, Beatles or Rolling Stones, but what is the necessary of some label to put out 3rd rate Beatles copycat project CD out, without demanding them to make one single good song to album? That it might be guys with badly programmed drums, out-out tune vocalist, shitty guitars - and yet they insists this is just as good as Beatles.
It's not dilemma of what amazing band according to your taste is the best and what is the ultimate hierarchy of top-10 of noise (hah). Should be very clear if you read any message written before what "quality control" means?
Quote from: heretogo on October 03, 2012, 11:14:55 AM
But what does the above have to do with the existence of quality in music?
But again I will ask. What is criteria of (good) quality of music? Time, when it was made or aesthetic factors of this music? If the second one, what are the factors, are you able to define those? Or maybe these criteria come from mouth of authorities? If Mikko Aspa and other well known journalist, and maybe William Bennett will say that an act called "ABCDEFEGHIJ" is good (or not good) the rest of the world must think the same? Do you need to be a sheep? Do you need to have a shepherd? Do you need a torchlight? Aren't you able to decide which music is good? And what when your opinion will be different to Mikko or William Bennett? Then you will not issue a new, the first or second record of debuted artist?
Quote from: heretogo on October 03, 2012, 11:14:55 AM
Important point is not that Philip Best kicks ass over everyone else but that he seems to produce (on average) quite inspiring and powerful music. Better than the average PE if you ask me
But this is only your opinion. Are you able to belief that there are people who think different? There are people for whom BEST isn't inspiring and they don't think that he did powerful music. And what then?
This doesn't mean that I want to ignore journalists or anybody who wants to write about music. I prefer only writing about
WHY music is good or bad (in reviewer's opinion), but not writing
WHAT is good or bad.
Quote from: ImpulsyStetoskopu on October 03, 2012, 11:37:08 AM
I prefer only writing about WHY music is good or bad (in reviewer's opinion), but not writing WHAT is good or bad.
But exactly this IS, the quality control from labels perspective:
You hear master, and you know why music is good or bad, and therefore if it is bad you don't release it. Or you ask artists to improve. And if it was improved to level you're satisfied and was released or it was rejected, the result is:
Labels catalogue is maintained with quality control.
If you did think this release isn't so good, and it has plenty of shitty things what could be better, but you do end up releasing it, that means not high quality control. YOU decide the quality, what was good and what was bad, and you chose to accept that it's bad, and who cares. I have heard this countless of times. Labels may not say it in public (and why would they if they have product to sell to you), but they may quite quickly confess the album they put out, wasn't
that good. When we acknowledge labels do not necessarily release stuff what lives up even their own personal standard what they really spend time listening to, we realize it certainly won't live up to listeners standard beyond luck of listeners easy satisfaction.
Quote from: ImpulsyStetoskopu on October 03, 2012, 11:37:08 AM
But this is only your opinion. Are you able to belief that there are people who think different? There are people for whom BEST isn't inspiring and they don't think that he did powerful music. And what then?
Yeah, it's my opinion. That's the way it goes with art and many other things, absolutes tend not to exist. Some people like tube amps, some prefer solid state. I'm not too keen on Mozart, much prefer Bach and Sibelius. Some like espresso, others rather drink filtered coffee made of less dark blends. And yet some type of quality is generally accepted to exist in all these things. There is shit coffee and there is good coffee. There are cheap & nasty amps and wonderful ones. And so on and so on. My own taste and standards obviously dicatate what is good (for me) but I'm not unique in this world, many people will share my taste to some degree at least. Personal standards are not universal but there is quite a bit of overlap with other people.
If quality does not exist then why not just pick any random noise (or rock for that matter) and enjoy it? One is as good as the other so why bother?
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on October 03, 2012, 11:36:46 AM
It should not be about comparing which is better quality, Beatles or Rolling Stones, but what is the necessary of some label to put out 3rd rate Beatles copycat project CD out, without demanding them to make one single good song to album?
It's not dilemma of what amazing band according to your taste is the best and what is the ultimate hierarchy of top-10 of noise (hah). Should be very clear if you read any message written before what "quality control" means?
Yes, I know what is the main thread, but in the meantime, I think, was touched another problem.
I can't imagine situation when owner of label decides to issue music which doesn't satisfy his ego (or super ego). It doesn't mean if there are bad one or 9 tracks from ten tracklist. I can't imagine also situation when I (as owner of label) must clarify why some tracks are good but or not and I demand to change tracklist or modify bad tracks. I could feel very strange if after my suggestions composer changed some parts of his music/tracks.
Quote from: heretogo on October 03, 2012, 12:11:05 PM
If quality does not exist then why not just pick any random noise (or rock for that matter) and enjoy it? One is as good as the other so why bother?
It demands on priorities. If some label wants to be big mirror of time, such as SOUND OF PIG, ZH27, EE TAPES and many more, probably they will not focus on quality of music so much. I don't know their true intentions but I could understand such status of label.
Quote from: ImpulsyStetoskopu on October 03, 2012, 12:17:26 PM
I can't imagine also situation when I (as owner of label) must clarify why some tracks are good but or not and I demand to change tracklist or modify bad tracks. I could feel very strange if after my suggestions composer changed some parts of his music/tracks.
I have done this many times. There is no Ramirez related releases on FA which would be issued "as it was". It's ALL his work, all his achievements. I merely wasn't satisfied on first version of master and demanded more. And curiously, I see many of those releases mentioned when people talk of his best stuff. Did I do damage to artistic integrity when demanding more or enabled artists to reach higher? I suspect latter.
Same goes for several others. I think it's good process for new stuff, but for re-issues - not really. No use to start re-making already published one.
Obviously we're not here to set rules who to run labels, but I'm guessing especially small labels putting out some friends stuff, have never considered alternative way of doing things.
I think it can be good to remind, huge majority of amazing classics of any art happened in collective environment of some sort. It included artists discussing with colleagues, it included teams, collectives, it included exhibition curators having their hand in presentation. In music, it included studio guy, possibly producers, possibly label boss, etc etc. This was still valid for big part of "independent" music not long ago. Even the most stubborn isolated artist would reveal to be subject of similar process which polished the diamond of their creation.
But at some point this "authenticity", the noble "artistic integrity" seemed to take some kind of holy dogmatic status, where real deal is supposedly found from pure works with no outside influences. And as result what can we see? I wouldn't say it generally has meant better releases. If even the greatest artists could brainstorm with colleagues to aim to better results - I find it amusing some guy with couple pedals and shakebox would be insulted about valid suggestion this ain't as good as it could be. Or friend of yours, could get mad to you if you say it's pretty good, but do better and I might release it. It has happened to me several times, and I have gotten used to it and consider 1 annoyed artists be much less of problem than 100 disappointed listeners.
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on October 03, 2012, 12:47:19 PM
If even the greatest artists could brainstorm with colleagues to aim to better results - I find it amusing some guy with couple pedals and shakebox would be insulted about valid suggestion this ain't as good as it could be. Or friend of yours, could get mad to you if you say it's pretty good, but do better and I might release it.
Yes, this is healthy situation. As we see, all depends on context and, how is close friend relation between owner of label and composer. Generally speaking, I prefer the situation when influences, in natural way, are received by artists. If it is forced by other people who aren't in friend relation, when is a task - releasing a record, then my perception doesn't accept it.
Quote from: Ritual on October 02, 2012, 07:03:33 PM
Quality control isn't (or shouldn't be) about picking big names over unknown ones. Nor is it about telling people (the consumers) what is good and what is not. It is an internal process within the label where you make sure that, once you've decided to release a certain artist's work, the release is relevant. That it is a release that needs to be made available, that isn't weak when compared to artist's other output, or label's output, for that matter. The choice which artist to release, I guess, would be more based on personal taste, but quality control of the material would be more a case of comparing to the artist's previous work, how the material holds after a lot of listenings, etc. It will never be completely free of personal bias, but it's a lot more objective than saying "this artist is good, but that artist sucks".
I feel artists should have a similar quality control process. But, in the end it is the label that is responsible for what it releases.
Most of the labels I tend to follow are ones that I either know, or think, have quite high standards when it comes to quality, and who aren't afraid to tell artists they can do better, if that's the case.
but where do you set the quality control, one label don't do it and another do? Isn't this a natural follwoing from the music itself? you like the music and want to release it, you like the music but think it should be mixed or you dislike it totaly. all are just your own views about it but where are the proofs about the quality control and are you really sure that it fits in the end? it sounds to me if someone sitting about the material and is thinking if the background of the frontcover should be pink or babyblue. its totaly ok with that, . if someone want to change things, he surely could, but i don't see any reason why others should do so,too or why others should be lower quality, only cause they don't interfere with the artists...
Quote from: Goat93 on October 03, 2012, 04:15:32 PM
but where do you set the quality control, one label don't do it and another do? Isn't this a natural follwoing from the music itself? you like the music and want to release it, you like the music but think it should be mixed or you dislike it totaly. all are just your own views about it but where are the proofs about the quality control and are you really sure that it fits in the end? it sounds to me if someone sitting about the material and is thinking if the background of the frontcover should be pink or babyblue. its totaly ok with that, . if someone want to change things, he surely could, but i don't see any reason why others should do so,too or why others should be lower quality, only cause they don't interfere with the artists...
If a label releases a work by an artist, despite knowing that the artist can do better and that this release will not be particularly rememberable work by this artist, then yes, I would say it's poor quality. If I had a label, I wouldn't like to operate like that. I can't see any point in spending money and time releasing stuff I personally don't feel strongly about. And, of course, you don't have to be an arse when giving criticism to the artist. It is fully possible to have a constuctive and positive dialogue about it if both parties are open to it. I can't see who would lose anything by this.
I feared that my writing comes this way. when someone feels better about this or that its ok, but in my opinion its just the taste of the person who make the critism. i say, when an artist is 100% satisfied with his work, it should be as it is. if the artist is not sure about his work or the label owner want it in another direction its all ok, but i won't do it for myself. so its just my opinion to handle. you say, when an artist can make it better, but what is "better"? we run in circles about definition of these words. "better" "quality" "poor" ect ect.
I think it's possible for someone who has a lot of knowledge of a certain field of art or music to give truly constructive criticism, in the sense that they might not even like the genre or style of a piece, but they can still see how it should work to be as good as it can be within this genre. A big part of quality is of course "personal taste", but it can also having a clear vision as opposed to being obviously not sure about what you really wanna say, sticking consistently to your vision instead of half-assing it; how a work is presented. Quality can be the exact point where you draw the line between "too minimalistic, something is missing" and "this is too much", etc. These are of course subjective at the end of the day too, but they can be argued and discussed as opposed to simply "this is good" or "this sucks".
All artists know that showing your work to someone else can turn everything on its head; the points that you thought were obvious are lost on someone, who instead picks up on other things not even intended, the work you think is the weakest is the one that gets the most praise, etc. Going to other people for criticism (a label owner, an art professor, your mum..) doesn't mean you have to change everything in accordance to what they say, but you will have to consider it. Why does this person have a different view of your work than yourself and does anything need changing, and if not, you should be confident enough to stick by your original idea anyway.
One thing that strikes me while reading this thread, though... a lot of you say that a work should be evaluated against the rest of the artist's catalogue, does it stand out or is it just average, can they do better, etc. This clearly can't be applied to debutante artists, so in that case there should be a higher degree of subjectivity involved perhaps?
Quote from: hsv on October 05, 2012, 11:15:31 AM
All artists know that showing your work to someone else can turn everything on its head; the points that you thought were obvious are lost on someone, who instead picks up on other things not even intended, the work you think is the weakest is the one that gets the most praise, etc. Going to other people for criticism (a label owner, an art professor, your mum..) doesn't mean you have to change everything in accordance to what they say, but you will have to consider it. Why does this person have a different view of your work than yourself and does anything need changing, and if not, you should be confident enough to stick by your original idea anyway.
Well put. Of course, a label owner giving criticism doesn't mean the artist MUST change his work. If artist is confident and simply the label owner doesn't share this vision (or understand it), then maybe find another label? That might be best for both parties. But, if a label owner is going to release a specific artist's work, knows this artist has done works before that are great (according to the knowledge, taste, yes, and/or artistic vision of the label owner), and feel disappointed in the material that is supplied... I feel some sort of criticism should be given. To simply shut up about it and release it anyway doesn't make sense to me. What about your integrity as label?