Covering Album Covers

[Dr. Medulla]

I think that's where having a really diplomatically-minded description next to the project could be helpful, if recruiters are even paying that much attention. I've been in an hiring position where the person's design did not match the live site after we Googled it, so that always becomes a fun interview question. If you're allowed to address it in an interview and can clearly explain why you think your solution is better (even if you gave the client what they ultimately wanted), it's usually a plus. Most Creative Directors will have been through the same thing so they're likely to be on your side if you have a good reason for it.

As I said, tho, that's me being paranoid (i.e., irrational). Any place you'd want to work would understand how these things go, and, as you say, it'd be a great opportunity in an interview where you can talk aesthetics and ideas and how the conversation went with the previous client.

When all the while you're thinking "that client was a dumb idiot."

Apologies for quoting Kevin Smith but: "This would be a great place to work if not for the fucking customers."

When I was at the record store, I preferred the customers to my coworkers by a lot.

I worked at a (shitty) bookstore and my co-workers were infinitely better than the customers.

[Dr. Medulla]

Let's make Kory weep: https://www.creativebloq.com/news/spide ... ome-poster

[Kory]

Let's make Kory weep: https://www.creativebloq.com/news/spide ... ome-poster

YIKE

[Dr. Medulla]

Let's make Kory weep: https://www.creativebloq.com/news/spide ... ome-poster

YIKE

As much as anything, it's making IMAX the predominant aspect. C'mon, honey, let's go see that new movie "IMAX."

[Marky Dread]

Let's make Kory weep: https://www.creativebloq.com/news/spide ... ome-poster

YIKE

As much as anything, it's making IMAX the predominant aspect. C'mon, honey, let's go see that new movie "IMAX."

Imax-Man Imax-Man does whatever an Imax can.

[Kory]

Let's make Kory weep: https://www.creativebloq.com/news/spide ... ome-poster

YIKE

As much as anything, it's making IMAX the predominant aspect. C'mon, honey, let's go see that new movie "IMAX."

Those Photoshop cutouts are awful too. They have completely different light sources. What a weird thing to exist.

[Dr. Medulla]

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... y-division

[Dr. Medulla]

So, I'm working on a lecture about indie labels—specifically Rough Trade and 4AD—and the whole question of trying to apply punk or counter-cultural values to marketing records. While reading, I was struck by how many 4AD artists resented Vaughan Oliver's sleeves, which are as distinctive and alluring as anyone else in the game. He's a core part of 4AD's brand identity. But it does raise a decent question that if indie labels emphasize artistic freedom, should that extend to the visual end of things, too? How much input should musicians have in this realm?

[WestwayKid]

So, I'm working on a lecture about indie labels—specifically Rough Trade and 4AD—and the whole question of trying to apply punk or counter-cultural values to marketing records. While reading, I was struck by how many 4AD artists resented Vaughan Oliver's sleeves, which are as distinctive and alluring as anyone else in the game. He's a core part of 4AD's brand identity. But it does raise a decent question that if indie labels emphasize artistic freedom, should that extend to the visual end of things, too? How much input should musicians have in this realm?

Mentioning Rough Trade - I think an important part of the legend of The Smiths was that Morrissey was allowed so much freedom when it came to designing sleeves. They're a band that is (I think) represented as a whole package: music and image (or Sound + Vision to borrow from Bowie). As someone who comes from a graphic design background, I think it can be very important to maintain visual artistic freedom - unless the artist in question simply doesn't have an eye for it. Morrissey had an eye for creating a distinctive look, but others do not. That said - I can also see the importance of someone like Oliver or Peter Saville - because sometimes the label/brand itself benefits from having a look. Saville's work (which I mostly really love) played a big part in the look/feel of Factory Records.

[Dr. Medulla]

So, I'm working on a lecture about indie labels—specifically Rough Trade and 4AD—and the whole question of trying to apply punk or counter-cultural values to marketing records. While reading, I was struck by how many 4AD artists resented Vaughan Oliver's sleeves, which are as distinctive and alluring as anyone else in the game. He's a core part of 4AD's brand identity. But it does raise a decent question that if indie labels emphasize artistic freedom, should that extend to the visual end of things, too? How much input should musicians have in this realm?

Mentioning Rough Trade - I think an important part of the legend of The Smiths was that Morrissey was allowed so much freedom when it came to designing sleeves. They're a band that is (I think) represented as a whole package: music and image (or Sound + Vision to borrow from Bowie). As someone who comes from a graphic design background, I think it can be very important to maintain visual artistic freedom - unless the artist in question simply doesn't have an eye for it. Morrissey had an eye for creating a distinctive look, but others do not. That said - I can also see the importance of someone like Oliver or Peter Saville - because sometimes the label/brand itself benefits from having a look. Saville's work (which I mostly really love) played a big part in the look/feel of Factory Records.

But what happens when the musician thinks they have design skill but all they actually have is ego? Who makes the call? Who gets to evaluate what's effective and what isn't?

[WestwayKid]

So, I'm working on a lecture about indie labels—specifically Rough Trade and 4AD—and the whole question of trying to apply punk or counter-cultural values to marketing records. While reading, I was struck by how many 4AD artists resented Vaughan Oliver's sleeves, which are as distinctive and alluring as anyone else in the game. He's a core part of 4AD's brand identity. But it does raise a decent question that if indie labels emphasize artistic freedom, should that extend to the visual end of things, too? How much input should musicians have in this realm?

Mentioning Rough Trade - I think an important part of the legend of The Smiths was that Morrissey was allowed so much freedom when it came to designing sleeves. They're a band that is (I think) represented as a whole package: music and image (or Sound + Vision to borrow from Bowie). As someone who comes from a graphic design background, I think it can be very important to maintain visual artistic freedom - unless the artist in question simply doesn't have an eye for it. Morrissey had an eye for creating a distinctive look, but others do not. That said - I can also see the importance of someone like Oliver or Peter Saville - because sometimes the label/brand itself benefits from having a look. Saville's work (which I mostly really love) played a big part in the look/feel of Factory Records.

But what happens when the musician thinks they have design skill but all they actually have is ego? Who makes the call? Who gets to evaluate what's effective and what isn't?

Good question. If the goal is to move records then someone (label boss?) would need the ability to override the artist and maybe it comes down to the relationship between the artist and the label head. A bad package/image can sink an album - just as a good package/image can elevate an average recording. It's also important to think about the idea of branding. Peter Saville's designs contributed to the Factory brand image. My hunch is that if a band didn't like his design, however, that Tony Wilson would not have forced it on them - but Factory was never about making money. If the goal is to shift product then someone needs to be able to step in when an artist doesn't have the required skill. If it's not about making money and it is more purely artistic expression then the artist is free to run wild.

[Dr. Medulla]

So, I'm working on a lecture about indie labels—specifically Rough Trade and 4AD—and the whole question of trying to apply punk or counter-cultural values to marketing records. While reading, I was struck by how many 4AD artists resented Vaughan Oliver's sleeves, which are as distinctive and alluring as anyone else in the game. He's a core part of 4AD's brand identity. But it does raise a decent question that if indie labels emphasize artistic freedom, should that extend to the visual end of things, too? How much input should musicians have in this realm?

Mentioning Rough Trade - I think an important part of the legend of The Smiths was that Morrissey was allowed so much freedom when it came to designing sleeves. They're a band that is (I think) represented as a whole package: music and image (or Sound + Vision to borrow from Bowie). As someone who comes from a graphic design background, I think it can be very important to maintain visual artistic freedom - unless the artist in question simply doesn't have an eye for it. Morrissey had an eye for creating a distinctive look, but others do not. That said - I can also see the importance of someone like Oliver or Peter Saville - because sometimes the label/brand itself benefits from having a look. Saville's work (which I mostly really love) played a big part in the look/feel of Factory Records.

But what happens when the musician thinks they have design skill but all they actually have is ego? Who makes the call? Who gets to evaluate what's effective and what isn't?

Good question. If the goal is to move records then someone (label boss?) would need the ability to override the artist and maybe it comes down to the relationship between the artist and the label head. A bad package/image can sink an album - just as a good package/image can elevate an average recording. It's also important to think about the idea of branding. Peter Saville's designs contributed to the Factory brand image. My hunch is that if a band didn't like his design, however, that Tony Wilson would not have forced it on them - but Factory was never about making money. If the goal is to shift product then someone needs to be able to step in when an artist doesn't have the required skill. If it's not about making money and it is more purely artistic expression then the artist is free to run wild.

It doesn't even have to be about money per se. Indie labels informed by punk on some level present themselves as champions of their artists, working to develop a band and help them sell records. While there are a few artists who truly don't care about how many copies they sell, push come to shove, artists want their stuff out there and heard by lots of people. So it doesn't have to be quite so mercenary in thinking about the ledger numbers than advocating for the best way for a record to be heard by potential audiences. But, again, this is about overruling the artist, seemingly being dictatorial.

[Kory]

So, I'm working on a lecture about indie labels—specifically Rough Trade and 4AD—and the whole question of trying to apply punk or counter-cultural values to marketing records. While reading, I was struck by how many 4AD artists resented Vaughan Oliver's sleeves, which are as distinctive and alluring as anyone else in the game. He's a core part of 4AD's brand identity. But it does raise a decent question that if indie labels emphasize artistic freedom, should that extend to the visual end of things, too? How much input should musicians have in this realm?

I don't know if I have a good answer for this. I'm a proponent of complete control by the artist (which may be why I've never tried to find a label that would have me) but plenty of people think they're designers and are most assuredly not. Maybe a balance can be struck where the label suggests the artists contract one of their friends to do the work rather than the label forcing somebody.

[Dr. Medulla]

So, I'm working on a lecture about indie labels—specifically Rough Trade and 4AD—and the whole question of trying to apply punk or counter-cultural values to marketing records. While reading, I was struck by how many 4AD artists resented Vaughan Oliver's sleeves, which are as distinctive and alluring as anyone else in the game. He's a core part of 4AD's brand identity. But it does raise a decent question that if indie labels emphasize artistic freedom, should that extend to the visual end of things, too? How much input should musicians have in this realm?

I don't know if I have a good answer for this. I'm a proponent of complete control by the artist (which may be why I've never tried to find a label that would have me) but plenty of people think they're designers and are most assuredly not. Maybe a balance can be struck where the label suggests the artists contract one of their friends to do the work rather than the label forcing somebody.

It is a tough question and it speaks, I think, to the problem of making punk principles work. Or the idea of indie labels being collaborators with bands. Whatever sympathies and intentions, the two are separate interests, and the higher the ambitions, the higher the likelihood of a clash. Wherever there is ambition to go out and reach people, as opposed to just putting something out there and see who stumbles upon it, the conflict potential grows.

[Kory]

So, I'm working on a lecture about indie labels—specifically Rough Trade and 4AD—and the whole question of trying to apply punk or counter-cultural values to marketing records. While reading, I was struck by how many 4AD artists resented Vaughan Oliver's sleeves, which are as distinctive and alluring as anyone else in the game. He's a core part of 4AD's brand identity. But it does raise a decent question that if indie labels emphasize artistic freedom, should that extend to the visual end of things, too? How much input should musicians have in this realm?

I don't know if I have a good answer for this. I'm a proponent of complete control by the artist (which may be why I've never tried to find a label that would have me) but plenty of people think they're designers and are most assuredly not. Maybe a balance can be struck where the label suggests the artists contract one of their friends to do the work rather than the label forcing somebody.

It is a tough question and it speaks, I think, to the problem of making punk principles work. Or the idea of indie labels being collaborators with bands. Whatever sympathies and intentions, the two are separate interests, and the higher the ambitions, the higher the likelihood of a clash. Wherever there is ambition to go out and reach people, as opposed to just putting something out there and see who stumbles upon it, the conflict potential grows.

Yeah, I think something like Spiral Scratch was as far as you could take punk principles at the time (which made Devoto the punkest motherfucker of the lot for recognizing that), which I find particularly appealing. Now with the internet, there's less reliance on labels and distribution, so it's kind of up to you how much you want to promote yourself, and you can do whatever you want, basically. A label, indie or otherwise, is typically going to have its self-preservation and probably some profit as priority #1, so it's almost never going to be a perfect symbiosis.