Quality control

[hsv]

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.

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

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.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

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... 

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

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. 

[hsv]

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.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

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.

[Goat93]

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"

[FreakAnimalFinland]

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?

[Levas]

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.

[ARKHE]

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.

[GEWALTMONOPOL]

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.

[Goat93]

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.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

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...

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.

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.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

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.

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.

[Levas]

Quality 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