Packaging

[Richard Pinnell]

Most labels dealing with nonpopular music are run as a labor of love by one or two people. I cannot think of one that makes enough money to support it's owner.

Yes, I'm sure they don't. But they are forced to make some kind of a reasonable return, I imagine, unless they're independently wealthy and can sink money into it indefinitely. This isn't a situation they choose to be in, of course; the necessity of "keeping afloat" in a climate of disinterest is just that: a necessity. And in this climate, making largely uncommerical music available is certainly against the odds, and is to be admired.

FWIW I am not forced to make any return, a reasonable one or not, as I do have an independent source of income, though I wouldn't describe myself as wealthy. I work hard in a tough day job that pays for Cathnor. As long as my day job employment stays solid I can sink money in at the rate I am happilly enough to keep going at about five releases a year without needing to make a return.

I do choose to be in this position. I could release CDs much cheaper if chose a less quirky format for the releases, and I could make some kind of return if I stopped giving away so many CDs for nothing. Thi s genuinely is a labour of love for me, which is why I have taken such offence when it is labelled as anything else.

[fearandpanic]

FWIW I am not forced to make any return, a reasonable one or not, as I do have an independent source of income, though I wouldn't describe myself as wealthy.

Is there any way at all this topic could be kept off Cathnor? I wasn't referring to you, or to anyone in particular.

This genuinely is a labour of love for me, which is why I have taken such offence when it is labelled as anything else.

I'm responding only to what you've written here. I've neither seen nor heard what you've released, so I'm not in a position to "label" your work one way or the other. I can comment on what you say here, though.

[jon abbey]

inspired by my man fear, avatar change...

"I appreciate suitable design", you mean? You flatter yourself!

no, more I can sense a general attitude in your posts where you're looking for more marketing and less content. your mouth screams "no", but I know what you really mean.

more seriously, "suitable design"? the image to the left is a still from the DVD that's inside, that seems reasonably well connected to me.

[Richard Pinnell]

Is there any way at all this topic could be kept off Cathnor? I wasn't referring to you, or to anyone in particular.

I realise you were not referring directly to me. I mentioned myself however to show that your comment on small labels isnt true for all.

I would actually suggest that there are a lot of small labels out there that do what they do without a care about how much of a return they make, simply as they know they won't make one. I am sure there are many others that write off all of the costs of production before waiting until their day jobs or other sources of funding allow another release.

Simply put there is NO return available for small labels working in this area. Its not possible to make a profit ongoing and only someone very stupid would set up a label with any expectations of it supporting itself.

[maRi]

However they choose to do it, I think that when the musician is making the artwork you are given an additional insight into the music.

it's not an additional insight into the music, but the musicians' overall sensitivity.

It may not be essential at all, but it is there.

so it may be redundant?
a note on what the musicians were digesting during the recording session seems more 'essential'.

OK, you didn't mean it this way, so never mind.

so you shouldn't take it that way.

your mouth screams "no", but I know what you really mean.

amusing and slightly disturbing.

We're all just trying to get deep about being shallow.

yeah, shallow deepness vs. deep shallowness, mostly.

[Dohol]

If you were any more opaque, you'd be a brick wall..

[user_548]

I have to post an appreciation for hatta's two recent posts without actually responding to them. Thanks for posting something provocative and intelligent rather than mostly reactionary. I find this an intersting topic, mostly because of how strongly I feel about it just from personal experience and personal reactions. I'm speaking purely on the level of consumer, though and am probably more willing to incorporate reactions to the packaging with the music than most people here. Personally I find it, mostly, more enhancing than anything but there's the other side of the coin where I am sometimes disappointed with the music because of a slapped together design.

Also, whoever pointed out that digipacks are nice because they have a practical design, a design that allows readable spines, I have to, somewhat reluctantly, agree with you. All those tall Hafler Trios are kind of shoved off into a corner and, too often, forgotten about.

[maRi]

If you were any more opaque, you'd be a brick wall..

[user_380]

i have found that most things with packaging i think sucks//usually contains music i think sucks

[user_333]

X) it is not a jewel case - jewel cases break.

...and can be easily replaced.

Plastic tabs break on your digipak? Well, you're stuck with it, since the case & art are attached.

you're right - i have a busted one. Oval - 94Diskont

Haha, that's exactly the one I had in mind. The CD in my copy has been balancing in a case with no plastic tabs for a decade now.

[bryan]

...and can be easily replaced.

Plastic tabs break on your digipak? Well, you're stuck with it, since the case & art are attached.

you're right - i have a busted one. Oval - 94Diskont

Haha, that's exactly the one I had in mind. The CD in my copy has been balancing in a case with no plastic tabs for a decade now.

hahaha! that's freaky.. decade sounds about right for me too.. i think i bought it that way. it's amazing that it's not all scratched up by now.

[mshiflet]

you're right - i have a busted one. Oval - 94Diskont

Haha, that's exactly the one I had in mind. The CD in my copy has been balancing in a case with no plastic tabs for a decade now.

hahaha! that's freaky.. decade sounds about right for me too.. i think i bought it that way. it's amazing that it's not all scratched up by now.

i think you two are failing to realize the deeper packaging concept there. it actually SHOULD be all scratched up by now. you blew it.

[Richard Pinnell]

i bought that Oval Cd myself, and while there's nothing wrong with the digipak, it sounds like it skipping all the time

[will]

I think that packaging insprires such animated discussion because it walks the line between art presentation and marketing. WIthout going off on some bullshit-laden Adorno-based rant about that, I think that it is clear to me that artists and labels have a strong obligation to make releases that look good, or people will stay away in droves.

For the label, there's also a market presence issue, you have to let what you're releasing help to develop a brand identity through its appearance, and consumers expect novelty. Notice that new labels go for various kinds of cardboard packaging and shun jewel cases. This is a grown-up version of waving your arms around and yelling "lookit me! Lookit me!" I'm sure that in a lot of cases, the labels involved are genuinely interested in making something that looks neat or does stuff that nobody's seen before, but I think that it escapes few people's attention that a unique product is eye-catching, and helps to build interest in everything your'e selling.

So, you consumers are all a bunch of shallow jackals, and we label operators are a bunch of cynical hacks out to make a quick buck off your inability to resist buying pretty looking things. True, perhaps, except that few people are making money off of crazy experimental music stuff. Like Richard's Cathnor and Jon's Erstwhile, I'm not seeing any black ink in the Formed ledgers, and don't expect to for some time. I should start making limited edition vinyl runs for titles, and limit them to subscribers, and emboss them in holographic foil and stuff, that's where the money is.

[bryan]

i think you two are failing to realize the deeper packaging concept there. it actually SHOULD be all scratched up by now. you blew it.

dammit, Markus Popp! I was a part of the process and I let you down.

No wonder you never gave the world your software....

[bryan]

I should start making limited edition vinyl runs for titles, and limit them to subscribers, and emboss them in holographic foil and stuff, that's where the money is.

Artist signed editions. handmade. subscription or small edition to satisfy initial interest. Advocate sharing under a Creative Commons license. Burn cdrs to order without any artwork for a minimum. Host files on site... sell out everything but keep the music available to everyone.

I think there's a feeling of wanting to connect with music we really like through a tangible object - the market for original vinyl isn't going away anytime soon, even though stuff has been reissued on CD and remastered, etc.. there'll still be people shelling out the $$$$ for, say.. original blues 78s on ebay or somesuch.

Look, it's clear where fear is going with this - he wants to hold the organization of music to account, not just for the way it's made by the musicians, but also the way it's distributed - everything. Content united with form or something.

But look... just heaping on criticisms (especially that apply to small labels like Richard's or Jon's or Will's etc..) without offering any sort of alternative model just isn't going to sit well (surprise).

So I am genuinely curious.. fear, what do you see as a good template for connecting music with potential listeners? And does this template involve labels at all?

[maRi]

to make releases that look good, or people will stay away in droves.

should musicians be good looking so that people will go to their concerts?

[user_826]

"... what do you see as a good template for connecting music with potential listeners? And does this template involve labels at all?"

well, people do connect with music....
it's not the music what is problematic here, it's this urge for packing that music in "acceptable, worked-on" covers, which play some (ethically) muddy role...

the question and socio-psychological phenomenon of "package" (its influence over buyer) has been learned in universities (out of various motives) for decades now....
my point would be that radical music shouldn't intensify what's already intensified to the point of obnoxiousness...
and that is perfectly clear to those who consider this music to be "radical"...
but again, everything said could be tossed with one simple question: "What is that that makes this music radical", and in no time we would be on that well trodden road...
which is counter-productive for our mental health...

[jkudler]

to make releases that look good, or people will stay away in droves.

should musicians be good looking so that people will go to their concerts?

fuck yeah! i'm in the gym 6-8 hours a day.

i bet more musicians than admit it think about what they wear on stage in some way. . .

-j.

[will]

If I think that releases should look good to attract listeners, should I care about the artists too? Fuck yeah, I have actually dropped a couple of projects from the label because the dudes were uglier than warthogs. When you purchase a Formed title, you can be assured that only the most physically perfect improvisors and composers were involved, and that approximately 2/3 of the album production budget was devoted to botox injections and spa treatments. I bought Mattin and Radu Malfatti matching sequined tuxedos to wear at Erstquake so that they will continue to rivet your attention even when they play all quiet and shit.