Re: [microsound] Quality Control

[david turgeon <david.t@xxxxxxxx>]

> Has anyone else, for example, been startled by the sheer number of "New
> works added by .tiln...!". At times there seem to be upwards of
> one/two/three/more a day!? The words 'quality' and 'control' spring to mind.
> Don't get me wrong, I think .tiln is (or was) a fantastic place and I
> applaud the concept, but, of late, it seems to be suffering from a severe
> case of lack of editorial rigor.

tony, i'm glad you ask.

..tiln, as far as i know, doesn't go by "editorial standards".  their
concept is to give away free space for artists who need it.  their
"constraints" are mostly style-wise (i.e. limited to certain kinds of
music).  some could argue that they're just an mp3.com for
microsounders, but there's more to it really.

first, none of the crap is there: no ads, no monitoring, no
taking-people-for-flaming-idiots.  the aesthetic is also quite inviting,
& the selection of artists is more focused, to say the least.  that
said, just like mp3.com, you also have to browse around for a little
while to find something that you really want to hear: that's the beauty
& the drawback of superdemocracy where "everything is permitted" but not
everything is noticed, understood, or talked of...

furthermore, if you say "quality control" then i must answer "quality to
whom?"  quality is a term that can be made to mean anything, from "nice
to hear" to "technical virtuosity" to "following the guidelines" to
"amazingly new & unheard of" to "instant success" to "difficult to
understand", & you can think up your own...  the vagueness of it makes
it understandable (& absolutely commendable) that some would want to
nevermind the quality aspect of it & concentrate on just letting the
music flow.

on the other hand, there are online labels with an "agenda".  falsch is
probably the best known on this list, but there is also no type (which i
run), fodder (fällt's mp3 sublabel), 2063 music, techNOH (ran by brian
lavelle), not to mention kazillions of sites doing techno music, all of
which usually come from the long tradition of tracking where "quality
control" (at least in some form) has always been an extremely important factor.

for my own purposes (i.e. that of no type), i do believe in a form of
"selection" which stems from personal preference but also from the
opinion of others.  the "standard of quality" establishes itself from
these premises.  if you don't mind me speaking of personal experience:
most of the artists on no type actually made more interesting music with
each passing release, not so much out of competition but simply because
we provide a spotlight guaranteeing at least _some_ audience.  likewise,
someone signed on mille plateaux is likely to change their sound towards
something more "post-structuralist-friendly" (yes, that's a joke) so as
to get a feeling of coherent contribution, as they know this will only
help their exposure to a wider public.

if you agree with my explanation, then you'll agree that .tiln is
actually following the same route, only with wider guidelines as to what
is "preffered".  to quote the "about" page, their preference would be
towards "sound works of emerging aesthetics of what could, or not be
called music."  this is clearly not "just anything we stumble upon". 
you also have to take into account that they take a bold move: "rather
than define a goal, tiln evolves through artists submitting works and
the collaborations that ensue."  which leads to the paradigm of
superdemocracy i've alluded to earlier.

this possibility of superdemocracy may sound like a license to a mess,
but it's more importantly a possibility for the UNHEARD to surface -- an
extremely valuable resource to say the least.

> Perhaps the heart of the problem lies in the sheer ease with which - pardon
> the pun - virtually anyone can now become involved in 'publishing'.
> Establishing a 'virtual' label to unleash an infinite number of 'virtual'
> releases is as simple as hiring some server space and learning some .html.
> If a '<100% digital/non-digital' label releases a CD (or even a CDR) it
> involves a significant investment in time, but more importantly, a
> significant investment in money. It is the money, in this instance, that is
> one of the keys to the equation. Money (or lack of) forces you to look at
> things (or listen to them) and question them closely. It almost instills a
> sense of 'by default' editorial policy.

i dream of a day when that really happens.  i think you surestimate the
power of CD-based labels to produce consistently interesting,
challenging, or even just plain nice to hear work.  for one (& in this i
agree with you that money is one of the keys to the equation) money
matters force one to think more conservatively, & sometimes even
_against their own tastes_.  breakthrough music will be long ignored
because it doesn't fit the mold; unusual formats (for example very long,
or very short albums) will have a hard time finding their way to the
listener as they will cost too much compared to what is perceived as
"consumer value".  new artists will not be given their due chance &
instead older artists will be milked for new, possibly less inspired
works just because their name will move more units.

editorial policy is very possible with online labels; perhaps even more
so.  you don't have to worry about a certain release not "selling"
enough; or that a certain artist has "released too many albums this year
already"; or that "the style may somewhat stylistically conflict with
our catalogue which will confuse buyers".  it allows for, gasp, shall i
say it, "true" freedom.  mix that with the _awesome_ pool of talent that
is the internet; the incredible amount of unknown composers/musicians
who would have never had a chance to express their singular vision (hah) otherwise.

> Perhaps this is why we don't see 'real' labels churning out endless
> quantites of ill-thought out filler which, more often than not, tend to be
> the results of a string of presets and borrowed Max/Msp patches. Keyword:
> Edit.

i think even if they did, they'd probably manage to move units anyway. 
provided they know how to market themselves.

> The question we might ask is this: Is digital audio truly the free-for-all
> panacea it claims to be or is it simply an unfortunate curse contributing
> yet more data to our already overloaded ears?

did anybody force you to download anything?

~ david