moni Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 There are many artists and many labels out there on the market and in the music scene. Now, we all have our favourite artists, since they are the creators of the main product that will be released. They are basicly the ones that get under our skin, so to speak. The label performs all the auxiliary activities in order to obtain the final product, with all the promotion and services involved before and after releasing the product (details don't matter here, so i'll move on). Both need eachother in order to survive on the competitional market and scene that we have today. I saw that many of you have certain favourite labels. So, here are my questions, please answer based on the criterias that made certain labels to be your favourites: In your opinnion .. who makes who? The artist makes the label? The label makes the artist? They make eachother by the principle "one hand washes the other"? It's very possible that we cannot generalise one of this 3 concepts, and that's why i didn't make a poll. Note: this thread is inspired by traveller's thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seraph Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Well, in beginnings they were all ONE. People were making labels, according to their mutual taste in music and similar affinities. First labels were so underground and they were bunch of gathered friends being enthusiastic about similar concepts they share. These days however things changed. Now, 'heads' of labels think they are somehow elitistic and choose only music that fits their selfish concept. Okay, there are still bunch of labels that are still on their own track, finding similar interests and putting them together but there are WAY TOO MANY labels that only do one thing, release music for the masses. I think that biggest sold out label ever was TIP, which was initially one of the best psychedelic trance labels but then they turned it into TIP World that is exclusively releasing full on albums and compilations. They even refuse anyone who is not making full on these days... I think that recent label policies are more for earning money than 'earning' enthusiasts and that is a shame. Underground scene turned mainstream and we are now DICTATED by label owners where before artists and dj's were controlling the scene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moni Posted November 10, 2005 Author Share Posted November 10, 2005 ok seraph, so you're saying that labels that made a big name in the scene now makes the artist? what about new labels? some new labels are doing great on the scene (you mentioned the enthusiasm), but not also on the market (i'm talking about very low profit or no profit, or maybe even financial loss). does a new label get the chance to attract big artist names that would give it a noticeable push on the scene & market? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seraph Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 ok seraph, so you're saying that labels that made a big name in the scene now makes the artist? what about new labels? some new labels are doing great on the scene (you mentioned the enthusiasm), but not also on the market (i'm talking about very low profit or no profit, or maybe even financial loss). does a new label get the chance to attract big names that would give it a noticeable push on the scene & market? 378413[/snapback] Of course, there are still enthusiasts that are not obsessed with modern standards and are willing to accept the risk ( Suntrip, Sundance, Tranceform ) cause it is most risky nowadays if goa or psy is produced cause EVERYONE expects full on or progressive. I like labels that are still producing their own thing and don't even want to fell under mainstream belt ( Boshke Beats, Kagdilia, Psy Harmonics, Schlabbaduerst, Digital Structures, Twisted, Exogenic, Iboga etc ) and I expect more of the people to feel and do exactly the same, not to sell for massive purposes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moni Posted November 10, 2005 Author Share Posted November 10, 2005 the purpose of a label is still to survive on the market, and to make profit. let's not forget this. the label cannot survive without a good product, thus good artists & djs. on the other hand, the artist, no matter how good his/her music is, cannot get "out there" without the label. who makes who lucky? who owes who. between you and me seraph, i don't think full-on sells THAT good .. it surely gets a good promotion, but i don't know about numbers. but let's not go offtopic yet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seraph Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Listeners PWN producers is bottom line. Unfortunately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaft Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 on the other hand, the artist, no matter how good his/her music is, cannot get "out there" without the label. 378424[/snapback] Unless the artist happens to have enough capital to start his/her own record label and release an album. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moni Posted November 10, 2005 Author Share Posted November 10, 2005 Unless the artist happens to have enough capital to start his/her own record label and release an album. 378465[/snapback] you do however notice the need of a label in your statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaft Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 you do however notice the need of a label in your statement. 378553[/snapback] Fair enough. I think still that the artists control the scene to some extent - we're still getting releases from suntrip etc that are not fullon, and the psychedelic chill scene is still very active. Labels need artists as much as artists need labels - it's not really a question of who makes who, it's WHAT they make TOGETHER. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 it's WHAT they make TOGETHER. I just thought exactly the same Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest antic Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I agree with most of what Seraph said. There are some labels that are "the sum of it's artists", i.e. Twisted, Digital Structures, Iboga old Dragonfly or... erhmm... nothing more comes to my mind The characteristic thing in those label is, that even when they release a compilation it's consisted of the same artists, yet they're diversified in sounds, style, atmosphere etc. They share the same / similar musical concept, but do not copy each other and leave a lot of freedom to their artists. Let's call these "artist labels" On the other hand we have labels with a certain formula / target in mind. Whatever sells good at the moment, they're producing it. No matter who is in the compilation it always sounds the same (Chemical Crew, Compact, Spun etc.). There's also very frequent rotation of artists (i.e. TIP World, Solstice), lot's of friendly remixes etc. Lets call them "formula label". As Moni said, every labels purpose is to earn money, but for the "formula labels" this is the main objective and comes from quantity, when for the "artist labels" profits come as a consequence of the quality. The dead proof of "artist-labels" dependancy on it's artists are Transient (Laughing Buddha, Slide, EoN, Cosmosis, Astral Projection) and Flying Rhino (Slinky Wizard, Darshan, Atmos, Guss Till). When labels tried to change the profile (for more housey in both cases), the best artist left them (i.e. Cosmosis) or tried to make new music according to the guidelines - that was the straight road down... My 2 cents anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time_Trap Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 well , the deeper you are underground, the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krelmatrix Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 They make eachother by the principle "one hand washes the other"? Yes. For underground music markets, it is a synergistic relationship between artists & labels that keeps things going. Labels obviously wouldn't have any purpose whatsoever without the artists. It's that simple...not much else can be said here. Artists could still make music without the labels, but they wouldn't have any really effective means (or time) to get their music to the general listeners, effectively promote their music, take care of all the necessary legal & technical BS for releases, etc. Just about all artists could do without labels is produce their tracks and make them available for free on the internet and by giving away demos (which some artists are perfectly happy with, but is not the goal for most). Labels really do connect the artists to the listeners/buyers and give them some sort of frame by which they can choose what they want to buy. An important function of labels is as "shit filters" - they find those few specks of corn in a big pile of shit and put it on a CD/record. Not that everything that gets released is great, but just imagine all of the crap that gets left behind. Without the labels to act in this function, it would be arduous for listeners to constantly pick through the horrible crap out there for the even half-decent music. Remember mp3.com? Remember how much absolute crap there was on that site compared to decent music? Now imagine if that was the only way we had to get our music. Without artists, labels have no purpose. Without labels, artists have no effective way to reach a broad range of listeners. I would even take it a couple steps farther and say that labels would have trouble existing without the distributors and that distributors would be screwed without the shops, but that is not the point of this thread anyways. It all comes down to the people buying the music anyways - all of them (artists, labels, distributors & shops) should be down on their knees kissing our royal butts. ------------ One semi-related tangent....I see people often expressing the belief that labels are greedy and out to make money, and that label owners are somehow getting "rich" in this scene. Nothing could be farther from the truth. A relatively large "commercial" (that term here makes me laugh) label like Chemical Crew or TIPWorld probably makes enough to support a couple low-paid full-time employees. Nobody is getting rich. Even a successful small label is usually run in somebody's spare time and isn't the main source of income for anybody involved. However, the vast majority of underground labels are lucky to break even and quite often lose money. At the worst, a label-owner is trying to use it as a springboard to fame & gigs. But in most cases, the small underground labels are run out of extreme passion for the music and a particular vision. Even if the people running them have no fucking clue what they are doing.... There are often mis-understandings between artists & labels in this scene. People are extremely quick to say "fucking greedy labels!". However, in most cases the fault is the label (or the label & the artist) having no professional sense and being in over their head. There is no money in owning & running a label. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time_Trap Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 An important function of labels is as "shit filters" - they find those few specks of corn in a big pile of shit and put it on a CD/record. i would say that today the labeals function as "quality filters" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krelmatrix Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 i would say that today the labeals function as "quality filters" 378742[/snapback] Hey man, leave Twisted out of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moni Posted November 10, 2005 Author Share Posted November 10, 2005 ok. let's say we have a big label, with big names in the scene. the artists decide to leave that label for various reasons (financial reasons, style changing reasons, maybe the artist group breaks up and stops making music, maybe the artist wants to open his own label, etc etc). can the label survive without these big names? i kinda believe that a part of the market became or is becoming saturated with so much full on, and this way, dark psy, who was more underground before, started to come to the surface, and listened to more. what is labels' influence on this movement? do they adjust and promote different music genres according to the scene tendencies? or do they follow the same line, "what sells" (full on, prog, etc) .. and explore that area till there is nothing left there? are labels flexible with their artists' evolution in time? i see new labels coming out on the market exploring new sections of the scene, but supporting possible financial loss in order to make a name and an image. do these influence the evolution of the scene? or is it the artists that have the big influence and labels adjust? (sorry if i'm babbling, i'm kinda tired... had a hard day ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SOLO Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 (edited) or do they follow the same line, "what sells" (full on, prog, etc) .. and explore that area till there is nothing left there? You just answered your own question there. Yes that's the way 99.9% of the commercial labels work. "Let's sell as much as possible and exploid the artists and the music to the max no matter if it's crap or quality". I can reveal from a bit of another point (less commercial side of the labels) that I was about to do a deal with a label until they started to send me samples they thought I should use in my music. And another label liked to tell me that I should do a CD a certain way following a certain concept they thought was right (chill out label). So it's not only the big commerical labels that like to control what music the artists make and how they do the music. This would never have happened before 2000. Edited November 10, 2005 by SOLO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krelmatrix Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I can reveal from a bit of another point (less commercial side of the labels) that I was about to do a deal with a label until they started to send me samples they thought I should use in my music. And another label liked to tell me that I should do a CD a certain way following a certain concept they thought was right (chill out label). So it's not only the big commerical labels that like to control what music the artists make and how they do the music. This would never have happened before 2000. 378800[/snapback] Just curious - were this creative input presented as suggestions or conditions for release? The first example sounds a bit wanky (if there was pressure involved), but I could definitely understand the second one under certain conditions. The label manager has an idea or concept for a release and asks a producer who they admire to make it come true. I could also see a label requesting a certain style for a track on a compilation or remix. In the more vinyl-oriented scenes, it is very common to release a track one on side of a 12" and have a different artist do a remix on the other side. Were I a label manager deciding on a remixer, I can think of many artists who I would definitely love to hire. However, some of these artists produce several different styles of music, so I would have no problem telling them what sort of style (within their range of styles) I was looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SOLO Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 (edited) Just curious - were this creative input presented as suggestions or conditions for release? The first example sounds a bit wanky (if there was pressure involved), but I could definitely understand the second one under certain conditions. The label manager has an idea or concept for a release and asks a producer who they admire to make it come true. I could also see a label requesting a certain style for a track on a compilation or remix. In the more vinyl-oriented scenes, it is very common to release a track one on side of a 12" and have a different artist do a remix on the other side. Were I a label manager deciding on a remixer, I can think of many artists who I would definitely love to hire. However, some of these artists produce several different styles of music, so I would have no problem telling them what sort of style (within their range of styles) I was looking for. 378816[/snapback] I do not know if it was the conditions in the first example but it certantly was in the 2nd. But neverthless I felt there would be too many complications and interruptions making music for those 2 labels. The first was indeed a blund attempt to make me make the music they though i should do... They had before that also told me that they wanted track x to be like this and that etc (For an artist album). And I saw the writing on the wall. A endless stream of "suggestions" to how they thought my CD should be like. Now call me old fashioned but I believe in artistic freedom and then the labels can say no thanks or yes thank you. The second example is no better than the first in my opinion. If a label ask me to make a CD (we are talking about an artist album here) then they can not expect the artist to do what they like "concept wise". And when I write concept then I am talking about the label instructing the artist to make the CD in a certain style of music that got nothing to do with that artists style at all (Here I am of course talking about myself). Maybe other artists are ok with being instructed how to make their music but I hold on to my right to choose how my music sound and how I make it. Then as I said above. Then the labels have the right to say yes or no thank you. The "concept" ting remind me a bit too much about a "hit farm" where a team of producers make music for some singers that have been brought in to sing on top of other people's music. Not my cup of tea. edit: I forgot to add that the label in question said that they liked the CD to sound like an artist X they already had released. sorry for going off-topic Edited November 10, 2005 by SOLO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoebis Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Interesting topic in our case (Suntrip), we never started a label to make any profit, we just wanted to give a vibe in the scene that was almost lost (and we didn't want that to happen!) Artist wise we (Me and Fab) have +- the same taste, and we simply choose between the tracks we get from different artists... For instance when we heard Khetzal we were both 100% we wanted to give THAT music to the people, no matter how unknown the guy is/was... Same with Filteria etc So we don't look at "the main stream", we just release what we like and what we think other goa-minded people will love I always said I rather release music that I love and make 100 people happy and lose some money then a full on release that would sell like crazy but not my kind of music... Later more comments, but too many schoolwork lately Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaySatanicHippie Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I dont know shit about the finances of labels and the mechanics behind it all, but i can figure out that no one, absolutely no one gets rich with a label in our scene. how could you with 10000 sold records being absolutely marvelous. so, i dont think anyones in it fo the money, and as strange as it may seem, some people really like full-on. the people running shitty full-on labels really like what their doing. just look at raja ram spinning, he is having a BLAST everzy single time. just look at isratrance, try to insult skazi and vlook what you get. really really pissed off people, who really like their skazi. so, ithink its ridiculous to say tip goes commercial, or they are in it for the money. i knew this guy in the states who played in some shitty unknown rock band on some shithead label and he sold like 15,000 records just through underground networks, and he wasnt happy. our scene is so small compared to the rest. the tip people really like full-on, you just have to accept that fact, thez are not getting rich and they are not selling out, they just have an amazingly bad taste in music. and about your case kris, to me it sounds like the label you are talking about had its artiistic vision and you had yours, and it just didnt fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reger Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 well , the deeper you are underground, the better. 378702[/snapback] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time_Trap Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I dont know shit about the finances of labels and the mechanics behind it all, but i can figure out that no one, absolutely no one gets rich with a label in our scene. how could you with 10000 sold records being absolutely marvelous. so, i dont think anyones in it fo the money, and as strange as it may seem, some people really like full-on. the people running shitty full-on labels really like what their doing. just look at raja ram spinning, he is having a BLAST everzy single time. just look at isratrance, try to insult skazi and vlook what you get. really really pissed off people, who really like their skazi. so, ithink its ridiculous to say tip goes commercial, or they are in it for the money. i knew this guy in the states who played in some shitty unknown rock band on some shithead label and he sold like 15,000 records just through underground networks, and he wasnt happy. our scene is so small compared to the rest. the tip people really like full-on, you just have to accept that fact, thez are not getting rich and they are not selling out, they just have an amazingly bad taste in music. and about your case kris, to me it sounds like the label you are talking about had its artiistic vision and you had yours, and it just didnt fit. 378853[/snapback] I doubt it. Look what music Raja Ram spinned 10 years ago. Yes, it doesnt make you ultra rich, but what about live acts and such? Artists do sell out.e.g a guy asked IM how much they want to play a 2hour live act or sth and they replied: *10,000euro. *A-class aeroplane tickets *Staying in 5-star hotel riiiiight. [ok now you could say this is the artists, not the labels... hmmmmm ] The scene is small and the money is big. yeah chemical crew havent become millionaires but they have made more than enough money ;} Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Towelie Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I doubt it. Look what music Raja Ram spinned 10 years ago. Yes, it doesnt make you ultra rich, but what about live acts and such? Artists do sell out.e.g a guy asked IM how much they want to play a 2hour live act or sth and they replied: *10,000euro. *A-class aeroplane tickets *Staying in 5-star hotel riiiiight. [ok now you could say this is the artists, not the labels... hmmmmm ] The scene is small and the money is big. yeah chemical crew havent become millionaires but they have made more than enough money ;} 378893[/snapback] 'a guy' .. like friend of a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krelmatrix Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I doubt it. Look what music Raja Ram spinned 10 years ago. Yes, it doesnt make you ultra rich, but what about live acts and such? Artists do sell out. That's a wholly different matter. Nobody - I repeat - nobody is getting rich directly from running a label in this scene. Somebody like Raja Ram may have benefitted in the form of increased gigs from being associated with a widely-recognized label like TIPWorld, but one could also argue that his association with Shpongle/1200 Mics had a greater effect. I personally can't think of any elite "goa superstars" that are *only* label owners/managers and not also artists. e.g a guy asked IM how much they want to play a 2hour live act or sth and they replied: *10,000euro. *A-class aeroplane tickets *Staying in 5-star hotel riiiiight. [ok now you could say this is the artists, not the labels... hmmmmm ] The scene is small and the money is big. Actually, this is quite believable and is to be expected for somebody as famous as Infected Mushroom. For the A-list DJs outside of the psytrance scene, a €5000-25,000 fee is definitely not out of the ordinary for a weekend, and first-class flights & 5-star hotel are definitely standard. Up the price for a live PA and consider it's two people, and what "a guy" was quoted for IM is totally reasonable when you consider how widely known they are now. (and I also don't personally think that IM sold out, but that's a completely different topic) You don't even want to see what how much it costs to book both of The Gay Satanic Hippies for a gig. It's absolutely shocking. yeah chemical crew havent become millionaires but they have made more than enough money ;} 378893[/snapback] proof? Can you show me bank statements or is this "just a hunch"? Ah - you probably mean that even €0.01 is too much money for these guys. In which case, I fully agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.