Netlabel l.llllllll summary


I’m really having a hard time with this “no titles” idea.

I just don’t get it.


Don’t misunderstand me, I’m a huge fan of titles. I guess the question in the end is :

Do we want lllll as a netlabel to be a creative vector that pushes some particular artforms, and in a way it will make this netlabel more of an artpiece on its own, in which case having fixed limits will be interesting because it’ll make the work of the musicians on it specific to the “experience” provided by the constraints set by the label.

Or do we “just” (I add “” because it’s actually a super hard goal to acheive) want it to be a sane and well thought out ecosystem for the lines community to more simply thrive and express itself via a beautiful website, in which case it’ll be better to have it be just a “box” in which artists each create their own landscapes and aesthetics, including arts and titles, of course!

Both ideas sound great to me and have their appeal and necessitate a very different approach, and in any case I’ll be very happy to listen to what comes out of it :slight_smile:


I started out thinking it’s just a nice container to pour creativity into.

But it quickly became clear that there was a shared artistic vision to pursue, so I’ve gradually moved more into the “creative vector” direction based on everyone’s feedback.

That being said, some constraints suggest a direction (“not that way, this way instead”). This is an advantageous constraint. Other constraints are simply stifling (“not that way. Period.”) I guess I"m not as fond of those! And I’m sort of seeing this “no titles” thing in that light for now. But I’m open to the possibility that I’m just missing it, that there’s a creative opportunity there that I’m simply failing to see.


As I said in my first answer, titles are actually so important to me that I’d be interested to see if, because of a reason that is not a personnal choice but a limit fixed to fit a bigger purpose, I would come up with something stylistically different if I were to consider my music would be “nameless”, in a flux of other “nameless” music. That being said, this is really just a thought and maybe it would end up being a terrible idea and just a loss for a loss, I’m intrigued though, and I thought I should mention it! :slight_smile:


Definitely, and thank you. I hope some other folks will chime in as well.


I’m definitely in the “the artists put the way they like it” camp, so long as it fits into the common format that is layed out – the mock ups so far (imho) look the right level of contraints to me.
I think the biggest danger is to create something too ‘arty’ to be functional and that it would eventually go unused dispite the clever thinking behind it. Not to be negative though, the only way to figure it out is to hear all views! :+1::grinning:


Personally I like the idea of no titles/plain cover art for a release as @LLK said it may be a liberating experience, but I generally struggle to name instrumental songs anyway so it’s not much of a sacrifice for me. Might be a different story for others who consider titles part of their art.

I realise I haven’t really added anything to the discussion here, sorry.


2017 revival.

i’d like to put some energy into getting this project started within a month or two.

considering the possibility of side-stepping the heavy technical lifting by simply using bandcamp embeds. of course i see a downside to this, but on the other hand the purpose of this project is cultural production, and we need more creative production in these times.

any thoughts on this?


I love these ideas and definitely want to be involved. I helped run a netlabel in the 90’s (and released music on it), so happy to help out wherever I can.

I agree with the creative constraints ideas, but also think titles should be open. Maybe a standard prefix/suffix and then an artist selected title as well?

For artwork, either a standard cover or a template have worked well. The other option is a single designer who creates a cohesive aesthetic for covers (i.e. Factory Records in the 80’s). But that’s a lot of work for somebody.

Sacred Bones does a really good job with a cover template. It ties the releases together, but also lets each one have a bit of personality. Although it looks like they’re breaking their template for some releases anyway…

This seems reasonable. If we could fund the Bandcamp Pro account for llllllll then we could have a Label page with individual artists… keep everything together.


Let’s use Bandcamp.

It’s not that the technical side of things is especially difficult. It’s more that we all have other intentions for the best use of our time, as has become very apparent. And Bandcamp has done an excellent job.

With regard to cover design, let’s leverage our curators for making sure that every musical artist being curated gets paired with a graphic artist (could be themselves or someone else) for that purpose. There are so many visual people in this forum, I don’t think it will be difficult to come up with coherent cover art within the l.llllllll “brand”.


@tehn, I’ll just add that I’m really grateful/relieved/excited that you brought this idea up. It means we get to move on to the fun part.


The question of monetisation should be raised I think.

Does each individual chose a “price”, pay what you wish or free, is it uniform, go to charity, go to paying for server upkeep etc for pro?


Curious to hear @tehn’s thoughts. I’m personally in favor of pay what you like or free, but I would love to support server fees and bandcamp pro. Any excess could be donated to a charity we find mutually agreeable.


That would be my preferences also @jasonw22.


I’m happy to chip in for a bandcamp pro account and server costs :slight_smile:


short of me actually going and looking, what are the advantages of a bandcamp pro account?



bandcamp’s “pro” tier offers a lot of the same things that the “pro” tier does on soundcloud: hidden tracks, private streaming, deeper detailed stats; though BC’s stats are way better than SC. additionally: batch upload and video hosting. but the service is about $120 per year, and isn’t built for a netlabel. for that, bandcamp has a “labels” tier:

much better release and multi-artist management, payment direction, among other features. it is, however, even more expensive than the pro tier. $20/month for 15 artists, $50/month for unlimited. all artists get “pro” accounts, with all that tier’s perks.


not to further distract, and i do like bandcamp, but does CASH music ( CASH Music ) solve any of the technical hurdles?


How is it different from Bandcamp?

EDIT: answered my own question. It’s a non-profit and its services are free to musicians. Very interesting.


The nice thing about Bandcamp Label is that we could release music from existing Bandcamp artists, and give them a “pro” account as a perk of being on the label… which could be a nice idea since we’re talking about putting profits into costs or donations. We’re asking for the artists to donate their music essentially… so if we can offer something in return that would be great.