NOT CRAP.
Statistics: Posted by caix_Archive — Sun Dec 24, 2006 1:56 pm
]]>
Marsupialized wrote:one of the greatest moments of my life was opening the box containing the first 7 inch my band ever made.
Same w/ me, tho t'was a stack of 30 self-recorded, hand-dubbed cassettes w/ photocopied covers. I was 12, and I still get giddy thinking about it.
When I ran a record label, one of the funnerest, gayest things I liked to do was call the band when the records arrived and say, "David, Smell The Glove is here."
Statistics: Posted by matthewbarnhart_Archive — Sun Dec 24, 2006 11:04 am
]]>
NOT CRAP!
Statistics: Posted by Marsupialized_Archive — Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:06 am
]]>
MrFood wrote:My point was that an overly-elaborate sleeve design may get the record noticed for the wrong reasons - my definition of overdesign.
Right. What you did was suggest that visual designers cannot simultaneously be musicians or vice versa when you made that point, and that irritated me. Also annoying was the summary trashing of "art-school" anything. Reading back, I was kind of harsh in attacking the point-maker instead of the point. Sorry.
warmowski wrote:Another thing they apparently didn't teach you in art school is the difference between personal axe-grinding and aesthetic evaluation.
No they didn't teach us this, because it's a retarded point to make which is rather obvious -
Doesn't seem nearly obvious to me reading your denunciation of motivation. Class complaints and bitterness, especially without visual examples are tough to take as anything but class complaints and bitterness standing in for evaluation.
..If you have been to art-school you will surely understand the negative effects of having such a high percentage of one elite demographic determining the dynamic of the course. If you haven't, then I guess it's a lot easier to sit there and accuse people of thuggish, inverted snobbery.
I'm sure what you describe happens inside art education, and that it has its regrettable effects on work produced. That's why I responded later to the idea of a recording being given short shrift in the process of making an elaborate rock record package/sleeve. And I honestly would like to deconstruct / spot-from-afar such examples, because it would be great fun.
You then came along and decided that through all your romantic bluster and wobbly semantics you were going to set me to rights ABOUT STUFF I ALREADY FUCKING KNOW. Fuck you.
If it helps, know that these wobbly, Rumsfeldian semantics aren't merely for your benefit, they are also for my own. I like to talk about this stuff, but I often don't precisely because of the academic/categorization and social-strata distractions the conversation produces. I (over)reacted to a depressing whiff of both.
warmowski wrote:If you ask me, visual design can't be overdone.
Here it is again, with a key point emboldened. Please bare this in mind.warmowski wrote:Compelling music is not easy to make, and impossible to make without design of its component parts and relationships.
I am guilty of a confusing terseness. Yet, let me bold one of your words:
This is from where our confusion arose and where it becomes clear that we are almost talking about two different things.
Seems we agree that an impulse and acuity to select and interrelate elements is overlaid upon both visual and musical work. So you can see where "are they musicians or are they designers" is a bad starting point for discussion.
So: is overdesign actually underdesign? Does the "USA for Africa" example of cwiko's demonstrate this principle by exposing the mass-of-tiny-artist-headshots as a withholding of resources from the designer (panel space, dollars, conceptual integrity)? Is such cost adequately described as a limitation in full design? Is this sacrficice, this sop to the industry-norms of artist aggrandizement / spectacle best described as a curtailing of design or expansion of it?
-r
Statistics: Posted by warmowski_Archive — Sat Dec 23, 2006 3:35 pm
]]>
I am 'in the know'; putting out at least 2 7"s a year for the last few years, and I will tell you 500$ won't get you all the pre-production FOR a 7" at Bill Smith, much less 500 copies. That's the norm. With most bands only putting out 500 records at a time, and then sending off 100+ for review, it's easy to see why some 7"s have hit the ugly 5$ mark. I've always sold them at a marked-down loss - if I wanted to make a profit, I wouldn't be doing music. I just love the format.
While there's been some neat design with jackets or whatever, I've bought too many records like that, only to be stiffed when the needle hits the vinyl. Anyone can put out a superneat packaging, you just need some geek with access to a college's art supplies. Anyone can put out a CD, anyone can put out a record, whatever. No format or packaging will give the music a 'get out of jail free' card if the band is ass.
Yes, the ideal sound quality is a 12" 45 rpm mastered onto the copper and pressed on 220g vinyl or whatever, but I still have some great, great sounding 7"s. As long as the length and frequencies respect the format and you don't go too cheap on any stage of the process, you can wind up with an acceptable sounding record that won't offend your sensitive audiophile sensations.
It's useless to worry whether or not you're "with the 21st century" with anything, whether it be music formats or whatever....
Does anyone have the first Brick 1-sided 7"? That's a perfect example of the format completely matching the intent of the music. I don't think even another side of that would do anything to increase the impact of that band and would in fact lessen it.
Statistics: Posted by M_a_x_Archive — Fri Dec 22, 2006 11:34 pm
]]>
that damned fly wrote:i have a tjl 7" single. marbled vinyl, pictures on the record instead of song titles.
sleeve says "side sims..., side yow..."
awesome.
"then comes dudley" 7", it's rare, i've been told.
sleeve says "side sims..., side yow..."
awesome.
"then comes dudley" 7", it's rare, i've been told.
There's at least two of them.
Yow side run-out message- "I dunno about you, but"
Sims side run-out message- "I'm far too drunk to play"
Great puke-purple vinyl.
7"s are not crap
Statistics: Posted by Richard_Archive — Fri Dec 22, 2006 8:32 pm
]]>
Mazec wrote:The "big hole" design edges in toward the C direction, since 45 inserts are not always easy to come by anymore, especially not out in the boondocks, and this trend is likely to continue.
There's a label in these parts that has put out 2 7" records for my band, and the head honcho insists on the large hole, and they must be 45 RPM. Why? Because those are the 2 requirements for the records to be played in classic jukeboxes. Now, you may ask: Who the hell has one of those? Well, he does, that's who.
I bought a ton of inserts on eBay a couple years ago and I give them away whenever someone buys a record. I've also dropped off a couple handfuls at record stores in town that carry the label's records. They just sit them next to the cache of 7"s and whoever wants one takes one.
As far as the poll goes, I give a definite NOT CRAP! The 7" is my favorite format. Nothing better than spending an afternoon sitting next to the turntable with a stack of records, actively listening, looking at the artwork, rapidly rubbing my inner-thighs, reading the inserts, more rapid rubbing, etc....
Anyone else have that double Taylor 7" set that was recorded at EA? Awesomely snazzy packaging, interesting inserts......
Statistics: Posted by Wheely_Archive — Fri Dec 22, 2006 8:54 am
]]>
warmowski wrote:
You explain what you see with the phrases you have, not the phrases you wish you had, or might want.
If not Rumsfeld, then how about Lee: If you choose not to decide...
-r
warmowski wrote:These are all decisions - even when they don't appear to be decisions at all - and these decisions are what add up to the statement.
I just felt like including that out-of-context statement because when I first read it, I really felt like I was reading something Don Rumsfeld had said. Kinda made me giggle for a split second. Thanks for that.
You explain what you see with the phrases you have, not the phrases you wish you had, or might want.
If not Rumsfeld, then how about Lee: If you choose not to decide...
-r
Well played!
I do agree that perhaps we've run afoul of our definitions of design. Perhaps we all haven't put enough design into our definitions of design...
Statistics: Posted by cwiko_Archive — Fri Dec 22, 2006 8:35 am
]]>
rocker654 wrote:
I think I heard a few minutes worth of their stuff. Somebody here linked to it.
Like a traumatic accident, I have blocked out any memory of it. So it kinda is like never having heard them before.
MrFood wrote:BadComrade wrote:Wrong. Touch & Go put out albums by Coco Rosie. Coco Rosie.
You're not gonna believe me now... but... wait for it....
I've never heard Coco Rosie. Never.
I hear people who I trust saying how much they suck, and I avoid them. It works!
I only found out they were on T&G a little while ago too....
Tell me, if ignorance is bliss - what state am I in? What would y'all give to be able to say you've never heard Coco Rosie? Indulge me.
I think I heard a few minutes worth of their stuff. Somebody here linked to it.
Like a traumatic accident, I have blocked out any memory of it. So it kinda is like never having heard them before.
keep on talking, motherfuckers...keep on talking
Statistics: Posted by Marsupialized_Archive — Fri Dec 22, 2006 8:34 am
]]>
The "big hole" design edges in toward the C direction, since 45 inserts are not always easy to come by anymore, especially not out in the boondocks, and this trend is likely to continue.
I knew a guy once who decided to go for the big hole on a run of 500 7" singles for his band, Chore. Reason: cheaper. How much cheaper? $0.03/pc. So you saved a grand total of $15 at the expense of whoever gives enough of a fuck about your band to buy your 7"? Brilliant.
More baffling is Jesus Lizard's three 7" set 'Lash', which comes in a 3-fold sleeve which can't have been that cheap to make, but still has the large hole discs. Strange. I really enjoyed the record, btw, just think that the format could have made more sense.
Statistics: Posted by Mazec_Archive — Fri Dec 22, 2006 8:26 am
]]>
]]>
cwiko wrote:I'm sorry...you're ripping on a guy for going to art school
Hey, that Food guy ripped on art school, not me. I ripped on him. I don't know from art school, ain't never been.
and you're speaking like a pretensious fuck. I don't follow.
Fair enough: I do have a pretense. My pretense is: I know what I am looking at. See below:
warmowski wrote: If you ask me, visual design can't be overdone.
This was your original blanket statement. To me, this assumes that even the most self-indulgent, thoughtless cluster-fuck is still not overdone by your standards. You want a specific example? How about (and i know this is cheese, but we're judging visual design aesthetic, right?) USA for Africa's "We Are the World"? It's clear the label & Quincy Jones wanted to sell as many as possible to raise funds for a good cause. In designing for this principle, there are a fuck-ton of tiny, little itty-bitty grainy photos on the back of all the superstar recording artists in studio. These photos are in fact so miniscule that it renders their subjects indecipherable. The lyrics are reprinted on the back & there is flashy 80's-style "design" all over it. Would you consider this design overdone?
I wish I had a copy of this record so I could be sure, but I'll say no - the design is underdone. Underdone because cramming all the artists photos onto the skin of the package is clearly an act of artist aggrandizement that necessarily wastes some of the opportunity to communicate the gravity, urgency and emotion of starving kids. It seems like the kind of tacky maneuver mainstream music projects are so well known for. Had that panel been used in a better way -- had it been designed fully instead of under-designed -- you would today have an emotional resonance about starving kids when you look at it instead of seeing a dumb pastiche of tiny Kenny Rogers, tiny Al Jarreau and tinier Paul Simon.
warmowski wrote:Dull bands are bands that do less design.
:shock: Not a fan of minimalism, are we? I guess by your standards, the Shellac 7"'s must be shining examples of a dull band's design.
I assume you mean the white texturey ones with the slightly embossed band logo brushed with, uh, Shellac to bring out the embossing and stamped with a green-ink rubber stamp that nicely picks up the brown in the Shellac. That's six or seven elements there, balanced nicely. The effect may appear minimalist, the design work and visual acuity needed to balance and relate these elements is absolutely not minimal, nor accidental. These are fully designed. You may not be aware of this.
warmowski wrote:These are all decisions - even when they don't appear to be decisions at all - and these decisions are what add up to the statement.
I just felt like including that out-of-context statement because when I first read it, I really felt like I was reading something Don Rumsfeld had said. Kinda made me giggle for a split second. Thanks for that.
You explain what you see with the phrases you have, not the phrases you wish you had, or might want.
If not Rumsfeld, then how about Lee: If you choose not to decide...
-r
Statistics: Posted by warmowski_Archive — Fri Dec 22, 2006 3:19 am
]]>
joelb wrote:I rarely buy new ones unless it's cool and unavailable on another format.
I certainly wouldn't mind properly mastered convenience copies of the Shellac non-full length releases, a la The Hammer Party.
Statistics: Posted by Bernardo_Archive — Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:06 pm
]]>
warmowski wrote:If a rock band (or recording artist) isn't designing as a raison d'etre, then that band is very likely not worth hearing.
I'm sorry...you're ripping on a guy for going to art school and you're speaking like a pretensious fuck. I don't follow.
warmowski wrote: If you ask me, visual design can't be overdone.
This was your original blanket statement. To me, this assumes that even the most self-indulgent, thoughtless cluster-fuck is still not overdone by your standards. You want a specific example? How about (and i know this is cheese, but we're judging visual design aesthetic, right?) USA for Africa's "We Are the World"? It's clear the label & Quincy Jones wanted to sell as many as possible to raise funds for a good cause. In designing for this principle, there are a fuck-ton of tiny, little itty-bitty grainy photos on the back of all the superstar recording artists in studio. These photos are in fact so miniscule that it renders their subjects indecipherable. The lyrics are reprinted on the back & there is flashy 80's-style "design" all over it. Would you consider this design overdone?
warmowski wrote:Dull bands are bands that do less design.
Not a fan of minimalism, are we? I guess by your standards, the Shellac 7"'s must be shining examples of a dull band's design.warmowski wrote:These are all decisions - even when they don't appear to be decisions at all - and these decisions are what add up to the statement.
I just felt like including that out-of-context statement because when I first read it, I really felt like I was reading something Don Rumsfeld had said. Kinda made me giggle for a split second. Thanks for that.
Statistics: Posted by cwiko_Archive — Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:05 pm
]]>
No one who has seen this in person would complain about the design.
Statistics: Posted by Johnny 13_Archive — Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:48 pm
]]>