OT: Album art opinions
Paul Hobson
We've drums, bass, and guitars laid down for the new album already.
Viola, keyboards, lap steel, vocals, and other nonsense to soon follow.
But anyway, my guitarist has been on the ball and used his previous
training in fine arts to come up with this:
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg611a/Music/DIGIPAK.jpg
(as the URL implies, it's for a digipak)
To listen to some songs on a different release, but written within the
same time period as this album go to
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg611a/Music/
and click on anything that starts with "iwoouldetc"
What do y'all think? He asked about the text in the lower right-hand
corner. "Believes in Patterns" is the name of the album; "i would
set..." is the band. I told him to make the text all the same font,
that so it reads homogeneously like the spine. Y'all's thoughts?
\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
.:change the f to ph to reply:.
Dan
A) The art is fine.
B) You should thank your lucky stars you have a member of the band who is
capable and willing to produce original album art.
C) At the point where you are paying him to be your art slave is the point
where you get to make suggestions.
Dan
---------------------------
"Paul Hobson" <fob...@gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:e2oohs$jo5$1...@news-int.gatech.edu...
SGD
Wow, I thought the exact opposite, "I would set..."=ALBUM and vice
versa...only because of the length of the band name. I know that most CD's
are listed artist then title.
If anything, I would say make it all the same font like you said, but leave
the color difference as is. Maybe some other effect on the title or band
name to differentiate it, subtly...
But, if not, I think it looks fine, but man...
That's a LONG BAND NAME!! ;-)
-S
--
"Timpani! Take your drums to Brooklyn, play the same volume, you'll be
fine." -Otto Werner Mueller on my "Piannissimo" entrance in a Juilliard
Orchestra Rehearsal, C. 1997
Remove: Spamoff from email address to reply.
SGD
> C) At the point where you are paying him to be your art slave is the point
> where you get to make suggestions.
True, but when they ask for suggestions, all bets are off! ;-)
-S
--
Stravinsky on Jazz:
The percussion and bass function as a central heating system. They must keep
the temperature Ścoolą, not cool.
-Igor Stravinsky
Pee@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com John P.
> But anyway, my guitarist has been on the ball and used his previous
> training in fine arts to come up with this:
> http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg611a/Music/DIGIPAK.jpg
> (as the URL implies, it's for a digipak)
Reminds me of an Eagles album cover.
I don't like the "Believes in Patterns". The line should be smooth, not all
jagged like that. Pull the text down off of the "I Would Set..." (So they
are not touching), and smooth them out (so the a line drawn under the
lettering would not be jagged - in this case, it'd be somewhat of a
sideways, stretched out 'S'). Other than that, the look is fine. It seems to
go well with the style of your music.
Frisco
Paul
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:26:19 -0400, Paul Hobson <fob...@gatech.edu>
wrote:
David
comparison....drop a dot or star or some symbol between the band name
and album name on the spine.
Otherwise, el perfecto.
Cheers,
David
Paul Hobson
> "My guitarist?" What?
>
> A) The art is fine.
Awesome. I think so too, but that's great to hear.
> B) You should thank your lucky stars you have a member of the band who is
> capable and willing to produce original album art.
I do every time he comes up with something...like design these shirts:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=106088182&size=m
(He and I did the hand-screen printing ourselves, btw)
> C) At the point where you are paying him to be your art slave is the point
> where you get to make suggestions.
I agree, and that's the attitude I normally take (which he appreciates),
but he and I are the driving forces (though he's much bigger than me
still) behind this band. He was kind enough to ask, so I wanted to give
him a good answer :).
\\paul
Paul Hobson
>>Hey guys,
>>
>>We've drums, bass, and guitars laid down for the new album already.
>>Viola, keyboards, lap steel, vocals, and other nonsense to soon follow.
>>
>>But anyway, my guitarist has been on the ball and used his previous
>>training in fine arts to come up with this:
>>http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg611a/Music/DIGIPAK.jpg
>>(as the URL implies, it's for a digipak)
SGD wrote:
> If anything, I would say make it all the same font like you said, but leave
> the color difference as is. Maybe some other effect on the title or band
> name to differentiate it, subtly...
>
> But, if not, I think it looks fine, but man...
>
> That's a LONG BAND NAME!! ;-)
It is and I've never really been happy with it. But for our musical
niche in the DIY music community, I'd say it's been more of a help than
a burden. Another thing my guitarist has taken on all by himself is
book the two month tour for the summer...pretty good results so far, I'd
say:
http://www.myspace.com/iwouldetc
I know, I know...myspace f'n blows, I hate it too.
Paul Hobson
Thanks EVERYONE for the response and advice. I'll pass it all along to
him. I'm sure he'll appreciate it too. I'll post the album for y'all
to download once it's done so y'all can tell me how band my time is :)
gpsman
> What do y'all think? He asked about the text in the lower right-hand
> corner. "Believes in Patterns" is the name of the album; "i would
> set..." is the band. I told him to make the text all the same font,
> that so it reads homogeneously like the spine. Y'all's thoughts?
Take advantage of the millions of dollars of market research the
mainstream music industry has paid for.
Yes
Led Zeppelin
98 Degrees
N'Sync
Backstreet Boys
Steppenwolf
Nirvana
The Experience
Beastie Boys
Weezer
Smashing Pumpkins
Cream
Jefferson Airplane
The Beatles
Blind Melon
Jethro Tull
Foo Fighters
Matchbox 20
Blink 182
Aerosmith
Gun's 'n Roses
Pearl Jam
Spice Girls
Poco
Little Feat
Queen
Boston
Chicago
Bjork
Chemical Brothers
Metallica
Garbage
Hole
Placebo
Green Day
The Offspring
I Would Set Myself On Fire For You...?
A budget strapped band needs distictive artwork that's identifiable,
simple and cheap to reproduce. Every dollar you save is another dollar
in your pockets, as you've undoubtably already concluded.
IMO, the artwork is ok, but it's wayyyy too busy and the predominant
color I would describe as cardboard brown. Booooor-RING.
Every part of the band "packaging" has to "work", literally.
Personally, I "kinda" like the name, except for it's length. But it
"loses" me. Why, would you set yourself on fire, for ME? I would work
on that, from that perspective, as in:
Irrational-Love/Thought/Obsession... OCD (obsessive-compulsive
disorder), etc.
FWIW.
-----
- gpsman
Dan
>>>I Would Set Myself On Fire For You...?<<<
Out of all the names you listed, you have to admit it's the most original. I
wish I would have thought of it for a few of the bands I've been in; I think
chicks would love the name! It's all about breaking convention. Paul's
project screams "this is not mainstream anything."
>>>IMO, the artwork is ok, but it's wayyyy too busy and the predominant
>>>color I would describe as cardboard brown. Booooor-RING.<<<
That's actually a very popular style but difficult to pull off. Sort of like
guys who spend hours and hours fixing their hair so it looks like they just
got out of bed. The artist did a good job.
>>>A budget strapped band needs distictive artwork that's identifiable,
>>>simple and cheap to reproduce. Every dollar you save is another dollar
>>>in your pockets, as you've undoubtably already concluded.<<<
Okay *that's* true. However, four-color printing these days is as cheap as
one, two and three color ever was. When needed, the artist has a good grasp
of how to break down the art to essential components as seen in the
T-Shirts. If they were trying to build an identity in a corporate
environment, this would need to be sharpened up quite a bit, but of course
they're not. If they break big they'll have to address the name-in-lights
issue: "Tonight Only -- IWSMOFFY!" You'd have to be in the inner circle to
get it, but this has "Babe Magnet" written all over it.
Dan
-------------------------
"gpsman" <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146152173.3...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
gpsman
> gpsman wrote:
>
> >>>I Would Set Myself On Fire For You...?<<<
>
> Out of all the names you listed, you have to admit it's the most original.
Maybe. It is original, but less so due to length. Less is often more.
But I like Commander Cody ATLPA and Too Slim and The Taildraggers
better, as far as longer names go because I think they show a little
more imagination, and say something more relavant than:
IWSMOFFY doesn't really say anything to me except "we're a chick band".
"We pander to chicks via over-romaticism and it sure would be great if
we got laid because that's why we started a band to begin with". But,
that's just me.
> I wish I would have thought of it for a few of the bands I've been in; I think
> chicks would love the name! It's all about breaking convention. Paul's
> project screams "this is not mainstream anything."
I don't know what "mainstream" is, but I suspect it's rap today. I
don't think today's kids are looking to divert from "mainstream"
"whatever". Young people are mostly about conforming and begging to be
accepted. That's why they get tattoos and piercings. They "think"
that makes them individualists but it's really just a way of
demonstrating they "belong", that they're like everyone else in their
age group..
My generation did it with long hair and bell bottoms and pot. I guess
we weren't as committed... but we had a war to protest and we were
"busy".
> >>>IMO, the artwork is ok, but it's wayyyy too busy and the predominant
> >>>color I would describe as cardboard brown. Booooor-RING.<<<
>
> That's actually a very popular style but difficult to pull off. Sort of like
> guys who spend hours and hours fixing their hair so it looks like they just
> got out of bed. The artist did a good job.
Popular among whom? Established bands who have labels fronting the
money for a real graphic artist? Album covers today, especially for
bands nobody has heard of and nobody cares about, IMO, need to grab the
eye and they have about one second to do it. If you're already popular
you can have your 3 year old scribble some shit and use that. When
you're building a "brand" you don't have the luxury of being
intricately artistic. IMO.
> >>>A budget strapped band needs distictive artwork that's identifiable,
> >>>simple and cheap to reproduce. Every dollar you save is another dollar
> >>>in your pockets, as you've undoubtably already concluded.<<<
>
> Okay *that's* true. However, four-color printing these days is as cheap as
> one, two and three color ever was. When needed, the artist has a good grasp
> of how to break down the art to essential components as seen in the
> T-Shirts. If they were trying to build an identity in a corporate
> environment, this would need to be sharpened up quite a bit, but of course
> they're not. If they break big they'll have to address the name-in-lights
> issue: "Tonight Only -- IWSMOFFY!" You'd have to be in the inner circle to
> get it, but this has "Babe Magnet" written all over it.
Babe Magnet my ass. Pussy's great and all but it doesn't come in "to
go" form and they don't accept it as payment at the gas station. Maybe
times have changed but I don't ever remember many girls liking any band
a boy didn't tell them was good, except The Doors.
If a band isn't building a unique identity they might as well up their
crap to MySpace and YouTube and begin the funeral arrangements
tomorrow.
I dunno. I've spent the majority of my post-drumming life in
advertising and sales and marketing, a good part of that in print,
radio and tv and people thought I was pretty good at it. It appears to
me the principles haven't changed much, but maybe you know better.
I'm using my past experience to sit here on my ass most of the time and
plan vacations but I could be all wrong, I guess. I don't see how
following the "principles" multi-billion dollar music labels use for
success would be the fastest path to McDonald's anyway.
It's all just opinion until it proves to work or not work.
-----
- gpsman
Paul Hobson
gpsman wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>>>>>I Would Set Myself On Fire For You...?<<<
>>
>>Out of all the names you listed, you have to admit it's the most original.
>
gpsman wrote:
> IWSMOFFY doesn't really say anything to me except "we're a chick band".
> "We pander to chicks via over-romaticism and it sure would be great if
> we got laid because that's why we started a band to begin with". But,
> that's just me.
I can assure you we're not a chick band. No one has ever gotten laid
b/c of our band. We're in a band b/c its fun and it let's us go on two
month road trips to see the whole fucking country when we could be in a
cubicle or behind a counter.
> Dan wrote:
>>I wish I would have thought of it for a few of the bands I've been in; I think
>>chicks would love the name! It's all about breaking convention. Paul's
>>project screams "this is not mainstream anything."
>
gpsman wrote:
> I don't know what "mainstream" is, but I suspect it's rap today. I
> don't think today's kids are looking to divert from "mainstream"
> "whatever". Young people are mostly about conforming and begging to be
> accepted. That's why they get tattoos and piercings. They "think"
> that makes them individualists but it's really just a way of
> demonstrating they "belong", that they're like everyone else in their
> age group..
Are you talking about me here? If you are, you're not very close to
anything remotely like me. Truth be told, I do enjoy fluid mechanics
more than drums and I hate tattoos (and mainstream music with few enough
exceptions to count on two hands).
gpsman wrote:
> My generation did it with long hair and bell bottoms and pot. I guess
> we weren't as committed... but we had a war to protest and we were
> "busy".
>
gpsman wrote:
>>>>>IMO, the artwork is ok, but it's wayyyy too busy and the predominant
>>>>>color I would describe as cardboard brown. Booooor-RING.<<<
> Dan wrote:
>>That's actually a very popular style but difficult to pull off. Sort of like
>>guys who spend hours and hours fixing their hair so it looks like they just
>>got out of bed. The artist did a good job.
>
gpsman wrote:
> Popular among whom? Established bands who have labels fronting the
> money for a real graphic artist? Album covers today, especially for
> bands nobody has heard of and nobody cares about, IMO, need to grab the
> eye and they have about one second to do it. If you're already popular
> you can have your 3 year old scribble some shit and use that. When
> you're building a "brand" you don't have the luxury of being
> intricately artistic. IMO.
We're not looking to get "established." If fact, we *don't* want to be
big and popular and play shitty 500+ capacity venues. That shit's
impersonal, boring, and totally unfulfilling.
gpsman wrote:
>>>>>A budget strapped band needs distictive artwork that's identifiable,
>>>>>simple and cheap to reproduce. Every dollar you save is another dollar
>>>>>in your pockets, as you've undoubtably already concluded.<<<
We're not paying for the packaging. Stephen's operating withing the
bounds set by Gavin Stickfigure. I can give you his email address if
you think you could run his label/distro better than he currently is.
> Dan wrote:
>>Okay *that's* true. However, four-color printing these days is as cheap as
>>one, two and three color ever was. When needed, the artist has a good grasp
>>of how to break down the art to essential components as seen in the
>>T-Shirts. If they were trying to build an identity in a corporate
>>environment, this would need to be sharpened up quite a bit, but of course
>>they're not. If they break big they'll have to address the name-in-lights
>>issue: "Tonight Only -- IWSMOFFY!" You'd have to be in the inner circle to
>>get it, but this has "Babe Magnet" written all over it.
gpsman wrote:
> Babe Magnet my ass. Pussy's great and all but it doesn't come in "to
> go" form and they don't accept it as payment at the gas station. Maybe
> times have changed but I don't ever remember many girls liking any band
> a boy didn't tell them was good, except The Doors.
We're not a band that's in it for the girls. The name's more of a
joke/tongue-in-cheek commentary on current hardcore. Like I said, no
one's really happy with it, but it's gotten us plenty of out of state
shows, so no one's complaining either. We also don't refer to women as
"pussy"
> If a band isn't building a unique identity they might as well up their
> crap to MySpace and YouTube and begin the funeral arrangements
> tomorrow.
What? How many of your mainstream rock bands all sound the same? I'd
say a unique identity would be more of a burden if you're trying to make
it big. Just look at all of the commercial hip-hop you cited. It's all
a brilliant exercise in marketing. They find what gets the masses
grinding on the club...then they 20 other hot artist rush into the
studio and make 40 other cookie-cutter songs and make money. Nothing
unique at all about their musical style, artwork, or attitudes.
gpsman wrote:
> I dunno. I've spent the majority of my post-drumming life in
> advertising and sales and marketing, a good part of that in print,
> radio and tv and people thought I was pretty good at it. It appears to
> me the principles haven't changed much, but maybe you know better.
Yeah, see we want nothing to do with TV or radio.
gpsman wrote:
> I'm using my past experience to sit here on my ass most of the time and
> plan vacations but I could be all wrong, I guess. I don't see how
> following the "principles" multi-billion dollar music labels use for
> success would be the fastest path to McDonald's anyway.
We want nothing to do with billion dollar businesses. F that noise.
This fun and we do it for us. I'm sorry you don't like the artwork.
You probably wouldn't like the music either. That's fine. Just don't
think that the business way is the only way. Stephen's proud of his art
and I'm proud of him. He's an amazing guitarist whose creativity is
always surprising both me ears and eyes. If you want to come see us on
tour and see what we're really all about...email me and let me know
where you live. I'll send you the info of our closest date.
Paul Hobson
Dan wrote:
> "My guitarist?" What?
>
> A) The art is fine.
Awesome. I think so too, but that's great to hear.
> B) You should thank your lucky stars you have a member of the band
who is capable and willing to produce original album art.
I do every time he comes up with something...like design these shirts:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=106088182&size=m
(He and I did the hand-screen printing ourselves, btw)
> C) At the point where you are paying him to be your art slave is the
point where you get to make suggestions.
I agree, and that's the attitude I normally take (which he appreciates),
but he and I are the driving forces (though he's much bigger than me
still) behind this band. He was kind enough to ask, so I wanted to give
him a good answer :).
\\paul
> "Paul Hobson" <fob...@gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:e2oohs$jo5$1...@news-int.gatech.edu...
>
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> We've drums, bass, and guitars laid down for the new album already.
Viola, keyboards, lap steel, vocals, and other nonsense to soon follow.
>>
>> But anyway, my guitarist has been on the ball and used his previous
training in fine arts to come up with this:
>> http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg611a/Music/DIGIPAK.jpg
>> (as the URL implies, it's for a digipak)
>>
>> To listen to some songs on a different release, but written within
the same time period as this album go to
>> http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg611a/Music/
>> and click on anything that starts with "iwoouldetc"
Dan
>>>It appears to me the principles haven't changed much, but maybe you know
>>>better.<<<
You are 100% correct on your principles, but you are misapplying them.
>>>Album covers today, especially for bands nobody has heard of and nobody
>>>cares about, IMO, need to grab the eye and they have about one second to
>>>do it.<<<
One second? At a retail record shop, yes. Wrong ballgame. Paul's album will
have grass roots distribution: Gigs, online, friends sharing with friends.
The Capital Records Marketing Machine isn't handling a thing here.
>>>"We pander to chicks via over-romaticism and it sure would be great if we
>>>got laid because that's why we started a band to begin with".<<<
I can't find anything wrong with that :-)
>>>I don't know what "mainstream" is,<<<
You labeled your list of bands in your last post "mainstream" which forms
the basis for this discussion.
>>>Popular among whom? <<<
It sells well in art galleries. Not the by-appointment, stiff upper lip
galleries, but the downtown "arty" galleries you find around colleges.
>>>When you're building a "brand" you don't have the luxury of being
>>>intricately artistic. IMO.<<<
Sometimes yes, sometimes no, depends on the long-term goals. You're assuming
Paul is building a brand and even *has* long-term goals for this project. If
that's the case, he can absolutely build a brand with the current album art
being the first brick in the wall. What we're not seeing or evaluating is
his marketing plan. Dollars to donuts it doesn't exist. My take is he has a
band, they recorded some tunes, here's some cover art for packaging so they
don't have to hand out CDs labeled with magic markers...it's pure fun right
now, not a business. There's no pressure to "move product." (He'll correct
our assumptions if they are wrong).
>>>Pussy's great and all but it doesn't come in "to go" form and they don't
>>>accept it as payment at the gas station. <<<
Interesting word usements but I have no idea what you're trying to saying
there! :-)
Dan
----------------------------
"gpsman" <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146193720.1...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
gpsman
> gpsman wrote:
>
> >>>It appears to me the principles haven't changed much, but maybe you know
> >>>better.<<<
>
> You are 100% correct on your principles, but you are misapplying them.
>
> >>>Album covers today, especially for bands nobody has heard of and nobody
> >>>cares about, IMO, need to grab the eye and they have about one second to
> >>>do it.<<<
>
> One second? At a retail record shop, yes. Wrong ballgame. Paul's album will
> have grass roots distribution: Gigs, online, friends sharing with friends.
> The Capital Records Marketing Machine isn't handling a thing here.
You're damn straight it isn't. Paul claims to have a label run by
Garry Stinkfinger who doesn't give a shit about making money, since
Paul's band doesn't. Garry seems to be smart enough not to piss his
money away on artwork for a band that doesn't want to sell records, but
he's not smart enough to kick their asses out the door.
Evidently his reason for starting a label was to surround himself with
musicians who consider the pinnacle of success remaining small and
unpopular and thereby achieve their artistic fulfillment.
> >>>"We pander to chicks via over-romaticism and it sure would be great if we
> >>>got laid because that's why we started a band to begin with".<<<
>
> I can't find anything wrong with that :-)
>
> >>>I don't know what "mainstream" is,<<<
>
> You labeled your list of bands in your last post "mainstream" which forms
> the basis for this discussion.
>
> >>>Popular among whom? <<<
>
> It sells well in art galleries. Not the by-appointment, stiff upper lip
> galleries, but the downtown "arty" galleries you find around colleges.
>
> >>>When you're building a "brand" you don't have the luxury of being
> >>>intricately artistic. IMO.<<<
>
> Sometimes yes, sometimes no, depends on the long-term goals. You're assuming
> Paul is building a brand and even *has* long-term goals for this project. If
> that's the case, he can absolutely build a brand with the current album art
> being the first brick in the wall. What we're not seeing or evaluating is
> his marketing plan. Dollars to donuts it doesn't exist. My take is he has a
> band, they recorded some tunes, here's some cover art for packaging so they
> don't have to hand out CDs labeled with magic markers...it's pure fun right
> now, not a business. There's no pressure to "move product." (He'll correct
> our assumptions if they are wrong).
Well, it seems his perspective is: "we *don't* want to be big and
popular and play shitty 500+ capacity venues. That shit's impersonal,
boring, and totally unfulfilling."
But for some reason beyond my comprehension Paul is soliciting opinions
about the album art! How could he give a fuck about the artwork if the
goal of the band is to remain small and unpopular and always play bar
gigs? Looking to make it as repulsive as possible? I think they're
got a good start.
They don't want to sell recordings, they would prefer people don't buy
it! I guess my perspective that recording it in the first place was a
monumental waste of time would be wrong.
Lost out here in "artists who don't want to support themselves via
their art land"...
-----
- gpsman
Dan
>>>I guess my perspective that recording it in the first place was a
>>>monumental waste of time would be wrong.<<<
Your goals for Paul are simply different than Paul's goals for himself.
Dan
--------------------------
"gpsman" <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146201709.6...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Paul Hobson
> Dan wrote:
>>One second? At a retail record shop, yes. Wrong ballgame. Paul's album will
>>have grass roots distribution: Gigs, online, friends sharing with friends.
>>The Capital Records Marketing Machine isn't handling a thing here.
>
>
> You're damn straight it isn't. Paul claims to have a label run by
> Garry Stinkfinger who doesn't give a shit about making money, since
> Paul's band doesn't.
Ha...clever.
> Garry seems to be smart enough not to piss his
> money away on artwork for a band that doesn't want to sell records, but
> he's not smart enough to kick their asses out the door.
Gavin thinks the CD will sell. Our last one made him a profit and payed
bills. That's why he's pressing 2500 copies instead of the 1000 we did
last time. We just want people to hear it. Gavin will probably charge
$8ppd in the US for it. We'll sell it for 5, 6, 7 bucks, whatever the
buyer has or thinks is fair (within reason, we do pay for gas afterall).
> Evidently his reason for starting a label was to surround himself with
> musicians who consider the pinnacle of success remaining small and
> unpopular and thereby achieve their artistic fulfillment.
www.stickfiguredistro.com
He sells independent music all over the world (shipped 15 copies of my
first CD to S. Korea).
>>Sometimes yes, sometimes no, depends on the long-term goals. You're assuming
>>Paul is building a brand and even *has* long-term goals for this project. If
>>that's the case, he can absolutely build a brand with the current album art
>>being the first brick in the wall. What we're not seeing or evaluating is
>>his marketing plan. Dollars to donuts it doesn't exist. My take is he has a
>>band, they recorded some tunes, here's some cover art for packaging so they
>>don't have to hand out CDs labeled with magic markers...it's pure fun right
>>now, not a business. There's no pressure to "move product." (He'll correct
>>our assumptions if they are wrong).
>
>
> Well, it seems his perspective is: "we *don't* want to be big and
> popular and play shitty 500+ capacity venues. That shit's impersonal,
> boring, and totally unfulfilling."
>
> But for some reason beyond my comprehension Paul is soliciting opinions
> about the album art! How could he give a fuck about the artwork if the
> goal of the band is to remain small and unpopular and always play bar
> gigs? Looking to make it as repulsive as possible? I think they're
> got a good start.
Music is a way to foster friendships and discussion about many things -
other forms of art being one of them. My guitarist wanted opinions.
Sometimes he makes gems, sometimes he doesn't. I wanted to confirm for
him that he had done well. Also: bars typically suck. We're more of a
house show/art space type band.
> They don't want to sell recordings, they would prefer people don't buy
> it! I guess my perspective that recording it in the first place was a
> monumental waste of time would be wrong.
I'm sorry my outlook on my music threatens yours so much. Chill out,
bro. We've gotten several offers from distros in Europe to take us on
tour. That's what we want. Experience and fun doing something we love.
Honestly, that 1000x easier going the DIY route. I'd rather take the
easy road that whore myself out playing songs that aren't fun packaged
in market-tested promo shots.
> Lost out here in "artists who don't want to support themselves via
> their art land"...
It's our choice to support ourselves through our other jobs. Why's that
so bothersome? On that note...I hope you have a better day tomorrow.
gpsman
> gpsman wrote:
>
> >>>I guess my perspective that recording it in the first place was a
> >>>monumental waste of time would be wrong.<<<
>
> Your goals for Paul are simply different than Paul's goals for himself.
No doubt. The idea of becoming a musician, forming a band and making
recordings with a goal of *unpopularity* is beyond my understanding.
To me, it defies reason.
There are just so many more efficient ways to become unpopular. If
unpopularity is the goal why leave the house for any reason other than
to throw your saved feces at passing traffic?
They must be a band made up of wealthy kids who Stinkfinger can bill
for studio time. Why else could he be interested in such a group?
But the solicitation of opinions of the self produced artwork, then
defense of criticism when the entire idea of the artwork is to be bad
enough to effectively de-promote the music and prevent any sales...
loses me.
If you just want to play music, with no desire for popularity, why gig?
Not for the money, the fun of touring is foremost so I'm presuming
they play for free and pay their own expenses.
Why travel out of town except to incur the expense?
Why bother to learn to play instruments if you acquire gigs soley via
the name of the band... and you don't want people to like the music or
the band anyway? The goal seems to be disliked.
Why buy instruments? Why not just load up on gaseous foods and fart
the tunes? If the goal is unpopularity, that oughta work as well as
hauling instruments around and playing them poorly, maybe better. It
would be more innovative, absolutely unique.
But that might lead to inquiries from Letterman, stupid human tricks.
Don't want that, that's TV. Being on TV is boring.
They don't want any radio airplay, somebody might like a tune.
They don't want to sell any CD's, that would indicate a gain in
popularity.
I don't know why the band doesn't set up and start farting in front of
a homeless shelter while Stinkfinger takes all of his and their money
and puts it in a pile and sets fire to it. That ought to generate some
unpopularity.
I don't think these guys have thought out all the options of remaining
small and unpopular. It ain't that hard, it's kinda fun. And that's
what Paul says IWSMOFFY is all about.
-----
- gpsman
gpsman
> gpsman wrote:
> > Dan wrote:
> >>One second? At a retail record shop, yes. Wrong ballgame. Paul's album will
> >>have grass roots distribution: Gigs, online, friends sharing with friends.
> >>The Capital Records Marketing Machine isn't handling a thing here.
> >
> >
> > You're damn straight it isn't. Paul claims to have a label run by
> > Garry Stinkfinger who doesn't give a shit about making money, since
> > Paul's band doesn't.
>
> Ha...clever.
>
> > Garry seems to be smart enough not to piss his
> > money away on artwork for a band that doesn't want to sell records, but
> > he's not smart enough to kick their asses out the door.
>
> Gavin thinks the CD will sell. Our last one made him a profit and payed
> bills. That's why he's pressing 2500 copies instead of the 1000 we did
> last time. We just want people to hear it. Gavin will probably charge
> $8ppd in the US for it. We'll sell it for 5, 6, 7 bucks, whatever the
> buyer has or thinks is fair (within reason, we do pay for gas afterall).
What the fuck? NOW... you want to sell it? What for? Not for money,
you said earlier you just wanted to have fun touring. Might you not be
risking popularity? Who the fuck is supposed to buy music that is
intended to be unpopular? How do you go about making music you're sure
nobody will like?
Whichever provides the least audience, I presume.
> > They don't want to sell recordings, they would prefer people don't buy
> > it! I guess my perspective that recording it in the first place was a
> > monumental waste of time would be wrong.
>
> I'm sorry my outlook on my music threatens yours so much. Chill out,
> bro. We've gotten several offers from distros in Europe to take us on
> tour. That's what we want. Experience and fun doing something we love.
> Honestly, that 1000x easier going the DIY route. I'd rather take the
> easy road that whore myself out playing songs that aren't fun packaged
> in market-tested promo shots.
What threat? I just don't understand what seems to be a waste of time
to promote a contradiction. We're a band and we don't want to make
money and we want to be sure nobody likes what we do, else we hover
under the curse of popularity.
> > Lost out here in "artists who don't want to support themselves via
> > their art land"...
>
> It's our choice to support ourselves through our other jobs. Why's that
> so bothersome? On that note...I hope you have a better day tomorrow.
I don't give a shit what you do. I'm a little pissed at you for
soliciting opinions on artwork of which the intent is to prevent sales
and popularity. You don't need any artwork for that. It's a little
insulting to expect me to believe you get gigs based on your name, or
that anybody even gives a shit what the name is or that anyone would
book a band if they knew the intent was actually to repulse listeners.
I find the premise of forming a band with the intent of remaining
unpopular beyond belief, or any sense. There are just so many better
ways to remain unpopular, even remain completely anonymous, than
forming a band. Wouldn't anonymity be the apex of unpopularity without
the risk that some idiot might like you?
Why leave the house?
-----
- gpsman
Paul Hobson
> Paul Hobson wrote:
>
>>gpsman wrote:
>>
>>>Dan wrote:
>>>
>>>>One second? At a retail record shop, yes. Wrong ballgame. Paul's album will
>>>>have grass roots distribution: Gigs, online, friends sharing with friends.
>>>>The Capital Records Marketing Machine isn't handling a thing here.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're damn straight it isn't. Paul claims to have a label run by
>>>Garry Stinkfinger who doesn't give a shit about making money, since
>>>Paul's band doesn't.
>>
>>Ha...clever.
>>
>>
>>>Garry seems to be smart enough not to piss his
>>>money away on artwork for a band that doesn't want to sell records, but
>>>he's not smart enough to kick their asses out the door.
>>
>>Gavin thinks the CD will sell. Our last one made him a profit and payed
>>bills. That's why he's pressing 2500 copies instead of the 1000 we did
>>last time. We just want people to hear it. Gavin will probably charge
>>$8ppd in the US for it. We'll sell it for 5, 6, 7 bucks, whatever the
>>buyer has or thinks is fair (within reason, we do pay for gas afterall).
>
>
> What the fuck? NOW... you want to sell it? What for? Not for money,
> you said earlier you just wanted to have fun touring. Might you not be
> risking popularity? Who the fuck is supposed to buy music that is
> intended to be unpopular? How do you go about making music you're sure
> nobody will like?
There's a fine line between trying to make it big and trying to support
a hobby. Putting out the CD and selling hand-silk screened shirt (for 7
bucks each) let's us tour around the country and have fun while making
music and art that we're happy with. If that becomes popular fine...so
long as we have fun. As it currently stands, we don't have fun at big
venues. We /want/ people to buy and enjoy the CD...we don't need to
make money off of it. Charging $15 for plastic and/or vinyl discs and
$20 for t shirts like these established bands you speak of would
possibly deter people from coming to our shows and having fun with us.
The fun part about tour is meeting new people and seeing new things.
Playing shows is just a little bonus.
>>>They don't want to sell recordings, they would prefer people don't buy
>>>it! I guess my perspective that recording it in the first place was a
>>>monumental waste of time would be wrong.
>>
>>I'm sorry my outlook on my music threatens yours so much. Chill out,
>>bro. We've gotten several offers from distros in Europe to take us on
>>tour. That's what we want. Experience and fun doing something we love.
>> Honestly, that 1000x easier going the DIY route. I'd rather take the
>>easy road that whore myself out playing songs that aren't fun packaged
>>in market-tested promo shots.
>
>
> What threat? I just don't understand what seems to be a waste of time
> to promote a contradiction. We're a band and we don't want to make
> money and we want to be sure nobody likes what we do, else we hover
> under the curse of popularity.
I fail to see this contradiction. We want to make money...it just
doesn't have to come from the music/band. All we need is the band to
cover it's own expenses.
>>>Lost out here in "artists who don't want to support themselves via
>>>their art land"...
>>
>>It's our choice to support ourselves through our other jobs. Why's that
>>so bothersome? On that note...I hope you have a better day tomorrow.
>
>
> I don't give a shit what you do. I'm a little pissed at you for
> soliciting opinions on artwork of which the intent is to prevent sales
> and popularity. You don't need any artwork for that. It's a little
> insulting to expect me to believe you get gigs based on your name, or
> that anybody even gives a shit what the name is or that anyone would
> book a band if they knew the intent was actually to repulse listeners.
You're actually mad at me? Oh boy. Get a life. We get gigs b/c some
people (not many) like the music (the name just helps sometimes). Don't
believe me...go to that decrepit myspace site of ours
(myspace.com/iwouldetc...someone else unrelated to us set up
/iwouldsetmyselfonfireforyou). I'd be lying that if I said I didn't
feel proud that so many people from states we've never been to dig the
tunes.
Playing shows and interacting with people is fun. There's clearly a
whole different side of music you haven't and probably won't experience.
Obviously, you definition of "gig" is very different than mine.
There's a whole genre of music that is designed to be repulsive and some
folks eat it up. Kind of ironic, I suppose. And I'll admit, getting
your panties in a wad has become kind of fun.
> I find the premise of forming a band with the intent of remaining
> unpopular beyond belief, or any sense. There are just so many better
> ways to remain unpopular, even remain completely anonymous, than
> forming a band. Wouldn't anonymity be the apex of unpopularity without
> the risk that some idiot might like you?
Then we couldn't get to play shows and go on tour and sleep on people's
floors and make new friends and see new places...
> Why leave the house?
Because it's fun.
Perry Justus
wrote:
>> It's our choice to support ourselves through our other jobs. Why's that
>> so bothersome? On that note...I hope you have a better day tomorrow.
>
>I don't give a shit what you do. I'm a little pissed at you for
>soliciting opinions on artwork of which the intent is to prevent sales
>and popularity. You don't need any artwork for that. It's a little
>insulting to expect me to believe you get gigs based on your name, or
>that anybody even gives a shit what the name is or that anyone would
>book a band if they knew the intent was actually to repulse listeners.
I must ask, who kicked sand in your vagina today?
Perry
Frisco
Exactly. Somebody had to say it...
Paul
Pee@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com John P.
> What the fuck? NOW... you want to sell it? What for? Not for money,
> you said earlier you just wanted to have fun touring. Might you not be
> risking popularity? Who the fuck is supposed to buy music that is
> intended to be unpopular? How do you go about making music you're sure
> nobody will like?
Damn man. Chill. You're trippin' on this one. I've been staying out of this,
but your responses are so intense... I'm like "So what?". I would think that
by this point, you'd have arrived at "Whatever dude. Your band. Your CD.
Your artwork." You have gotten to the point where you are arguing with
someone over what *their* goals, thoughts & future plans are. I find it hard
to believe that you could know that better than he does. Right?
So... I'm going to email you a six pack of your favorite beer and the entire
"Girls Gone Wild" DVD collection. I want you to just relax, drink beer and
watch college girls tits galore and try to just chill a bit. This ain't that
big a thing. ;-)
Pee@neveragainvolunteeryourself.com John P.
> No doubt. The idea of becoming a musician, forming a band and making
> recordings with a goal of *unpopularity* is beyond my understanding.
> To me, it defies reason.
It sure does... and if anyone here had ever made such a claim, I'd probably
state so as well. I don't, however, recall seeing Paul state a goal of
unpopularity. My take was that the main goal of the band was not huge
popularity at the expense of other goals for the band and in their lives.
Chris Milillo
Signed,
A sometimes grumpy, not so old, and mildly cynical bastard