Discussing former labels when seeking a new one?

Much like a person searching for a new job after a negative experience at their previous job, my band is in the position of searching for a label after an unfavorable previous experience. We weren't dropped - the label went out of business when we were one album into a three-album contract - but they handled some things wrong on their end that we want to avoid in the future. When approaching prospective new labels, I feel that it's of benefit to us to mention that we were previously signed, but if the topic of our former label comes up, I want to be professional without glossing over the negatives. Long story short, the old label fulfilled their obligations but did so in a fairly half-assed manner, hurting themselves and us in the process.

Any suggestions?

IF the topic comes up, any mention of the label's competence could raise negative questions. If you argue too strongly that the label's management were incompetent, then one might ask (to themselves) 'then why did they sign you?'

I'd say 'I wasn't involved with the business side of THEIR operation, so I can't answer for them'. and leave it at that.

Never trash your former label. Just make sure you learn the right lessons from that experience. Small indie labels do come and go, and in all honesty, most are not well managed. The new label guys in all likelihood either know what happened to the other label or know the guys who ran it....just explain that although you were with them, they went under long before you were done with them.

Also, make certain that their failure releases you from any obligation to that label before you sign with a new one.

good luck!

I agree with D. Mack. It never pays to trash people, especially when you never know who they're related to in some way or another...

The fact that they went out of business is enough of a negative that speaks for itself.

Maddy said it pretty well with, "I'd say 'I wasn't involved with the business side of THEIR operation, so I can't answer for them'. and leave it at that..

How would you know?

I brought this up due to two issues we encountered with the old label, which cost us money initially and eventually hurt them.

1) Mixing/mastering process - Our finanacial obligation was to pay for the recording and mixing, with mastering and everything after to be covered by the label. We sent them what we believed to be a very good mix (considering a $2000 budget in a basement studio), but their "mastering guy" came back with a bunch of remix requirements. We went along with this, which was bad enough - the mix sounded nothing like we had intended - and to top it off, the mastering job was VERY poor. Somehow, the label considered it acceptable, and that's the version that was pressed and released. We got blasted over the poor production in reviews, which was bound to negatively impact sales...thus hurting the label.

2) Promotion - We are a metal band, and I would say that the term "underground" applies. Most fans of underground metal bands are very picky about what subgenres they will consider when buying albums, and the label totally missed the mark. The target audience *they* had in mind wouldn't have liked our music, and the audience *we* had in mind wouldn't have touched it in the first place simply because of how it was described in ads and the label-prepared bio.

The label never asked us to change the songs - that would have been a show-stopper - but they handled certain aspects of the process wrong. I don't want to encounter the same issues with another label, but I don't want to bring dirty laundry to a new relationship. If it doesn't come up, all the better.

Perhaps then the answer is not so much in the label, but in your band having even more involvement in those other aspects of the business... Perhaps some level of participation in the mastering decisions, and consultation in the marketing plan. Bring it up as ways you believe you can help your new label, not reasons the old label sucked and died.

Why would you let someone have control over mixing or mastering? Mastering is cheap-under 1k probably in most cases, much less than that in many. Mixing is expensive, but you already had that done. It seems to me that after all the blood, sweat, and tears of recording and mixing a record, you wouldn't want to give up control of the sound, or even the cover of the CD, unless you were getting an obscene advance. An advance that would suffice if the record was ruined, or buried. Same with the marketing-there should have been a meeting of the minds so that you were all pulling in the same direction. I wouldn't gloss over these issues in the future, but make sure they are spelled out and understood. A band and it's musicians only have a short time span in order to break through and earn money. It's not like a lawyer, who can practise for 50 years. You can't afford for this to happen again. Better to do it yourself than have someone botch it. I think you can clarify your position without trashing the old label.