Quality control

[martialgodmask]

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.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

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.

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.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

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.

[Levas]

You 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")

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

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.

[Goat93]

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

[Ritual]

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.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

I read the latest posts and I don't understand where is problem. Is problem that somebody could have different opinion

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!

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

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"...

[GEWALTMONOPOL]

For 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.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

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.

[hsv]

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"...

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...

[pentd]

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!)

[heretogo]

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.

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

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?