Dubstepforum.com

I've noticed a lot of the artists that release under UKF and Ministry of Sound release new tracks that sound same..ish.

I was wondering if you get signed to a big label do you lose a certain element of creative control? UKF is an interesting one because even different producers release music that sounds similar to another producers. I've always wondered if producers are told what to produce.

I know a producer that was signed to Ministry of Sound when they was releasing 4x4/UKB around the time it was big and he left to release his own music but don't say why he left.

I`m certain they will restrict your creative output slightly.
There's no doubt.
The last thing UKF or Minsitry want is for a producer to work on 4x4, get signed and then produce ambient.

GV1 wrote:UKF and Ministry of Sound release new tracks that sound same..ish.

It's all to do with winning formula. If something has worked before, the label want you to do similar stuff.

Filthzilla wrote:

GV1 wrote:UKF and Ministry of Sound release new tracks that sound same..ish.

It's all to do with winning formula. If something has worked before, the label want you to do similar stuff.

This suffocates creativity and progression IMO. Those labels will end up being disposable, a sign of the times and will be quickly forgotten once the mainstream moves onto the next fad.

I read a Rustie interview recently where he says that he was working on his album for a couple of years and that the whole time he was going back and forth with warp, sending them stuff and getting feedback from them. Unless i am interpreting it wrong I feel like the implication is that they had some creative input into the whole thing.. Kinda like how conventional bands often have producers that work behind the scenes and shape their sound to some extent..

um4mi wrote:I read a Rustie interview recently where he says that he was working on his album for a couple of years and that the whole time he was going back and forth with warp, sending them stuff and getting feedback from them. Unless i am interpreting it wrong I feel like the implication is that they had some creative input into the whole thing.. Kinda like how conventional bands often have producers that work behind the scenes and shape their sound to some extent..

I know what you are getting at. But lets not be silly, there is a massive gulf between what Warp put out and what UKF put out and further to that a massive difference between the artists they sign and label ethos. Also you have no idea what is said behind closed doors. Rustie's "back and forths" could have been mixdown related, or may have just been getting label feedback. Warp have quite a varied catalogue so I would imagine Rustie would have had a decent amount of leeway in what he wanted to make. UKF on the other hand, you aint gonna get signed unless you sound like Skrillex / Zomboy / Skism / <insertbrostepproducerhere>

Rustie is never gonna get signed to UKF is he

do you reckon UKF have actual clauses in their contracts which state that all music on their label must contain a minimum amount of screeches?

Depends on contracts. A good label will support the artist and give creative control. Usually that's independent labels, or when an artist has built up a significant name for themselves or built a great relationship with the particular label. Take Hyperdub and the Darkstar album. They didn't even let him hear it, just scrapped everything he heard and then sent over North a few months later. Totally different music.

Contracts is also where aliases can come into play. Usually if you sign an exclusive deal, they literally will own your name, so you have to use another name. That's one of the main reasons Aphex released on so many different names, he didn't own the Aphex Twin name any more.

I wouldn't consider them major labels though MoS is pretty major in electronic music, but the reason most UKF and MoS sounds the same is that's the market they shoot for, and people who like that specific sound shoot for them. I doubt you'll find many people making 2step with atmospheric pads trying to send stuff to them. They cater to dancefloor/tearout stuff and have a very commercial mindset about it. If ambient garage was hugely popular, you can bet they would release that too.

Sparxy wrote:

um4mi wrote:I read a Rustie interview recently where he says that he was working on his album for a couple of years and that the whole time he was going back and forth with warp, sending them stuff and getting feedback from them. Unless i am interpreting it wrong I feel like the implication is that they had some creative input into the whole thing.. Kinda like how conventional bands often have producers that work behind the scenes and shape their sound to some extent..

I know what you are getting at. But lets not be silly, there is a massive gulf between what Warp put out and what UKF put out and further to that a massive difference between the artists they sign and label ethos. Also you have no idea what is said behind closed doors. Rustie's "back and forths" could have been mixdown related, or may have just been getting label feedback. Warp have quite a varied catalogue so I would imagine Rustie would have had a decent amount of leeway in what he wanted to make. UKF on the other hand, you aint gonna get signed unless you sound like Skrillex / Zomboy / Skism / <insertbrostepproducerhere>

Rustie is never gonna get signed to UKF is he

Obviously he needs feedback from them. They probably weren't saying like 'it would be better if you made this style, then we would release it', it's probably more like seeing how good it is, and trying to get the best out of him. If the tune is shit, they aint gonna want to release it, so he will get feedback and then either go away and make the tune better, or scrap that one and make another.

skimpi wrote:

Sparxy wrote:

um4mi wrote:I read a Rustie interview recently where he says that he was working on his album for a couple of years and that the whole time he was going back and forth with warp, sending them stuff and getting feedback from them. Unless i am interpreting it wrong I feel like the implication is that they had some creative input into the whole thing.. Kinda like how conventional bands often have producers that work behind the scenes and shape their sound to some extent..

I know what you are getting at. But lets not be silly, there is a massive gulf between what Warp put out and what UKF put out and further to that a massive difference between the artists they sign and label ethos. Also you have no idea what is said behind closed doors. Rustie's "back and forths" could have been mixdown related, or may have just been getting label feedback. Warp have quite a varied catalogue so I would imagine Rustie would have had a decent amount of leeway in what he wanted to make. UKF on the other hand, you aint gonna get signed unless you sound like Skrillex / Zomboy / Skism / <insertbrostepproducerhere>

Rustie is never gonna get signed to UKF is he

Obviously he needs feedback from them. They probably weren't saying like 'it would be better if you made this style, then we would release it', it's probably more like seeing how good it is, and trying to get the best out of him. If the tune is shit, they aint gonna want to release it, so he will get feedback and then either go away and make the tune better, or scrap that one and make another.

Yeah mate I know, thats basically what i was saying

Labels like to track an artist's progression before making a decision too. They always know the first tracks they get will likely be the strongest ones, so they typically want to hear more after.

skimpi wrote:

Sparxy wrote:

um4mi wrote:I read a Rustie interview recently where he says that he was working on his album for a couple of years and that the whole time he was going back and forth with warp, sending them stuff and getting feedback from them. Unless i am interpreting it wrong I feel like the implication is that they had some creative input into the whole thing.. Kinda like how conventional bands often have producers that work behind the scenes and shape their sound to some extent..

I know what you are getting at. But lets not be silly, there is a massive gulf between what Warp put out and what UKF put out and further to that a massive difference between the artists they sign and label ethos. Also you have no idea what is said behind closed doors. Rustie's "back and forths" could have been mixdown related, or may have just been getting label feedback. Warp have quite a varied catalogue so I would imagine Rustie would have had a decent amount of leeway in what he wanted to make. UKF on the other hand, you aint gonna get signed unless you sound like Skrillex / Zomboy / Skism / <insertbrostepproducerhere>

Rustie is never gonna get signed to UKF is he

Obviously he needs feedback from them. They probably weren't saying like 'it would be better if you made this style, then we would release it', it's probably more like seeing how good it is, and trying to get the best out of him. If the tune is shit, they aint gonna want to release it, so he will get feedback and then either go away and make the tune better, or scrap that one and make another.

I don't think anything can be said to be 'obvious' in this situation... Anyway the implication seemed to be that he would make changes to tracks based on feedback from warp, and i really don't think there's anything wrong with that to be honest (within reason of course). But there you go that's all i really have to say on this subject.

My mate's old band is signed to Gary Barlow's label
He quit when they fired the bassist over his hairstyle (no lie)

Kochari wrote:My mate's old band is signed to Gary Barlow's label
He quit when they fired the bassist over his hairstyle (no lie)

was it that bad ?

I was negotiating a signing with DLA last year and in all honesty they were massive tnucs.

they say they liked my tracks, and when we started negotiating they said "well only sign if you change this", and they kept saying it till the song was completely different. they were assholes so i just said fuck it.

Lectric wrote:I was negotiating a signing with DLA last year and in all honesty they were massive tnucs.

they say they liked my tracks, and when we started negotiating they said "well only sign if you change this", and they kept saying it till the song was completely different. they were assholes so i just said fuck it.

Who are DLA? Fuck all that shit, yeah maybe like its good to get feedback on mixing stuff, maybe if they say its a bit empty, would be good to fill it out, then thats constructive criticism. If they want to change the whole song though, and tell you specific things to change then fuck them, you want someone to release YOUR music, not theirs!

skimpi wrote:

Lectric wrote:I was negotiating a signing with DLA last year and in all honesty they were massive tnucs.

they say they liked my tracks, and when we started negotiating they said "well only sign if you change this", and they kept saying it till the song was completely different. they were assholes so i just said fuck it.

Who are DLA? Fuck all that shit, yeah maybe like its good to get feedback on mixing stuff, maybe if they say its a bit empty, would be good to fill it out, then thats constructive criticism. If they want to change the whole song though, and tell you specific things to change then fuck them, you want someone to release YOUR music, not theirs!

The only DLA I know is the Disability Living Allowance.

DLA = Dirt Lies and Audio Recordings

yikes

Kochari wrote:My mate's old band is signed to Gary Barlow's label
He quit when they fired the bassist over his hairstyle (no lie)

This happens a lot in the pop record labels.

I understand labels should offer criticisms, and drafts would be past back and forth for each track, it's a business after all and you want to maintain the quality your label represents. But, what I meant was something more than this ... do labels dictate? That should have been a better way to put it.

As for Ministry of Sound, they paid artists as little as £400 - £1000 for their 4x4/UKB when they was releasing "The Sounds of Bassline". I know a producer who was on the first CD that got £1000 to sign over his track. He didn't even get any royalties. But, most of those producers were young, and £1000 was nice to them. By the time Ministry had signed it they'd already hit their sales peaks a long time ago.

Not to mention those small artists would have had their tracks on those shody compilations that were in HMV and not got a dime for it. Who remembers those? They were in DVD style case on CDR CD's with inkjet printed CD's. One of my early tracks was featured on one, and ended up on a compilation in HMV that I didn't even know about.