Packaging

[jkudler]

saw bruckmann play last night (and got "group" from him, will - it's actually playing right now), and let's just say, "i'd like to meet his tailor." those vintage punk band buttons *perfectly* offset the smart lines of his slacks, and yes, the chemical peel was SOOOO worth the money. the music? in a word: HANDSOME.

-j.

[flies]

"What is that that makes this music radical"

PIZZA!

[bryan]

"What is that that makes this music radical"

PIZZA!

i just ate a pizza for lunch, and my teeth tearing it into smaller pieces was music 2 my ears.

TRUE STORY.

[will]

Oh, yeah, Bruckmann, I haven't actually heard any of his music or anything, I just happened across a couple of head shots of his and thought, "yeah, stick this one in front of a crowd and it's money in the bank". Apparently it worked, too, you bought Group, and were probably bummed at the lack of beefcake photos in the inner packaging.
Wait, was this at High Zero? Is that happening now? I'm sort of out of touch with things in the US.

[user_60]

I think packaging is, if not an integral part of music, then a part that can considerably enhance the whole experience of it. This is something a lot of major labels don't seem to appreciate, particularly WRT to limiting the impact of P2P networks and piracy.

[fearandpanic]

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.

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.

It's not easy telling the difference between your heavy-handed sarcasm bludgeon and your "real" comments.

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.

"yeah, stick this one in front of a crowd and it's money in the bank"

Here too the second joke comment is disturbingly similar to the first serious one.

a couple of head shots of his and thought, "yeah, stick this one in front of a crowd and it's money in the bank"

It's not a question of making money, as it goes without saying (I would have thought) that there isn't much to be made. It's more a question of the relationship between people and music engendered by the existence (and, increasingly, the aggressive crassness) of "us" sellers, who must mediate between music making and music listening, and "them", buyers ("consumers"?). That this way of thinking about "our market" still persists in so-called labours of love is even more baffling. You might find this an "unnuanced" criticism, but nothing more elaborate is necessary given the crassness of much of this discussion.

What we have, you would think reading some of the comments in this thread, is merely a microcosm of music selling and buying on the major label scale. Though "ours" has the mystical appeal of something refined, something requiring the most sophisticated taste, which I imagine some would prefer to think is the real source of its commercial failure. You repeatedly use the word consumers (are people at concerts consumers too?) despite the fact that this music couldn't be further from a passive, submissive relationship between the musicians and listeners; and of course you claim it's possible to know what it is, or claim to pander to what it is, they "expect."

Or was that section part of your sarcasm mode as well?

[jon abbey]

YAWN

[jon abbey]

sorry, just woke up, I certainly didn't mean to imply that these criticisms are anything less than riveting.

anyway, I've started to post here a bunch of times, but it's just too big of a topic for me to be happy with my posts. I'll take a shot anyway, I guess.

we always have the same few people weighing in on the theoretical side of things here, but they're always filled with questions about how things work, and they never seem to have any potential answers. what gets actual label owners frustrated at times is that we're constantly trying to come up with the best answers possible (in a real world scenario), we're questioning our own actions all the time, and so for other people who have never tried to do what we're doing to constantly question without offering any concrete ideas is frustrating. feel free to contribute those at any point, apologies if I missed your suggestions.

each label and each musician has different ideas about presenting their work, there's as much range here as there is in the actual music. there are CDs I love that I think the design is awful (Love Me Two Times for instance, sorry, Howie, et. al.). that doesn't make it any less important, I don't think.

one thing that both Richard and myself find interesting is the idea of building a visual label identity. this isn't necessarily anything to do with commerce, for me it's about trying to do justice to the music, it's a matter of respect. as Richard said, if that was any sort of motivation, we'd put the artist names on the front cover. Richard designs his own discs (very well so far, I might add), and I have a house designer (the inspired Friederike Paetzold), and usually allow the musicians and/or their designers a lot of leeway. the fundamental idea behind almost everything on Erstwhile is collaboration, in numerous ways, and this holds true with the design also. it's true that sometimes I veto something I simply can't live with, either in the design or the music, but the same holds true at times for the musicians, and at times I back down and give in.

also, designing a CD isn't just about the cover, it's about the entire package. I personally have a bit of a problem with the labels that it's nice to have a striking image if it's appropriate. with Erstwhile, it's usually some sort of collaboration between the musicians and myself/my designer Friederike, so because of the pretty wide range of aesthetics, there's a wide range of design, hopefully making up some kind of Erst house style, although you might be hardpressed to pin it down.

I certainly knew much more about music when I started Erst, and definitely made more mistakes on the design end of things than the musical one, but I'm pretty proud of the way both have developed over the last few years. still, the goal is to try to keep getting better all the time, always room for improvement...

[jon abbey]

plus, for me, it's simply a question of respect for the music/musicians. maybe you'd feel comfortable putting out something like Duos for Doris or the Hands of Caravaggio on unmarked CD-Rs, but I wouldn't.

[fearandpanic]

YAWN

Oh, sorry. I mean. Packaging, yeah. It's great. The more elaborate the better. And what's wrong with something being better anyway?

And really, I suppose, if I have a problem with anything I should just get out there and do it myself.

[jon abbey]

YAWN

Oh, sorry. I mean. Packaging, yeah. It's great. The more elaborate the better. And what's wrong with something being better anyway?

And really, I suppose, if I have a problem with anything I should just get out there and do it myself.

no, your blanket criticisms are endlessly fascinating. you're the conscience of a generation. never change!

[bryan]

And really, I suppose, if I have a problem with anything I should just get out there and do it myself.

do it!

[fearandpanic]

I think the audiovisual side of things could be quite interesting, though I've seen very little that strikes me as successful in that regard. Looking at the Erstwhile CD that happens to be in front of me, "What a Wonderful World", it looks fine—maybe at a stretch I could apply it to the music—though for the designer it might be more specific (I bought it to hear Noetinger and eRIKm; I presume even if I'd seen a pitcure of it first). To me it's of little interest in relation to the music. Much like all the Potlatch CDs I have, the visual side of things doesn't enter into it.

But also the type of music is hugely significant: does most improvised music have heavy conceptual-art type leanings (Rowe aside) that lends itself to "suitable" packaging? Something more conceptual like the Hafler Trio depends quite heavily on various non-musical artifacts... these are more part of the work than any pre-purchase "draw" (which the music can't be exluded from either), so it would be a misunderstanding of the complete work to reject one aspect, or to give preference to one over the other.

I do this automatically with improvised music; maybe I shouldn't. So it's for that reason also that I'm suspicious of the aims of most "deluxe" packaging, etc.

[jon abbey]

I think the audiovisual side of things could be quite interesting, though I've seen very little that strikes me as successful in that regard. Looking at the Erstwhile CD that happens to be in front of me, "What a Wonderful World", it looks fine—maybe at a stretch I could apply it to the music—though for the designer it might be more specific (I bought it to hear Noetinger and eRIKm; I presume even if I'd seen a picture of it first). To me it's of little interest in relation to the music. Much like all the Potlatch CDs I have, the visual side of things doesn't enter into it.

yeah, that one's not a great example, I think. it was totally done by Erik's designer, we didn't have any input at all, and I'm not crazy about it. but clearly for Erik, there's a connection, even if there isn't for you and me.

maybe you (fear specifically) would buy exactly the same releases if they all came as unmarked CD-Rs, but not everyone's like you, for better or for worse. you still have some noble idea of "THE MUSIC", which I agree is obviously the most important thing, but there's nothing wrong with creating a suitable package for that music. in fact, as I just said, I think to not do so would be disrespectful.

I also think the concept of an imprint is a crucial one, it certainly has been in my own journeys through the world of culture. if a book is on Vintage International, if a film is on Criterion, just to name two examples, I'm going to pay more attention to it and be more likely to buy it than I would otherwise, for better or for worse. no one can intake everything that's out there, and so the label identity in music is extremely important, IMO. it's always been a huge part of my own buying/listening decisions.

coincidentally, the first release on Alastair's Quincunx label just arrived here. I can't wait until my man fear sees this one...

[flies]

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.

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.

It's not easy telling the difference between your heavy-handed sarcasm bludgeon and your "real" comments.

the fact that you have trouble making the distinction is due to a failure of effort on your part. You refuse to acknowledge that the choice of what music to acquire is driven partly by the potential listener's experience of buying the album, which by necessity includes looking at the packaging in advance of listening to the music.

Even if the music were freely distributed, this would still be the case: there will be limits on how much music one can listen to, hence the listener must choose certain music over other music. You seem to imply that labels and stores should exert no influence over the listener's choice, which could never happen (unless humans lose all drive to compete), and i don't understand why you should even want it.

Since you're having trouble, let me help you out: the first quote says that a label should try and make itself distinct and attractive by any reasonable means. the second quote presents the pessimistic view that buyers make all their choices based on marketing and that sellers are coldly selling expensive, shiny packages whose content is irrelevant. The distinction that Will draws (correct me if i'm wrong) is the difference between what constitutes 'reasonable means' of advertising.

[jon abbey]

the potential listener's experience of buying the album, which by necessity includes looking at the packaging in advance of listening to the music.

can I just point out that this really isn't the case anymore, with online ordering? if you order from ErstDist, chances are good that you haven't seen the covers of at least some of what you've bought until you receive it.

for me, packaging is much much more about creating an appropriate "container" for the music as a hopefully permanent addition to someone's home/collection than it is any kind of sales device. again, if this weren't the case, I'd put the artist names on the front cover.

[fearandpanic]

the fact that you have trouble making the distinction is due to a failure of effort on your part.

I can actually tell the difference, thanks. That's why I marked them clearly as such. But the tone is the giveaway more than the content, which is strikingly similar.

You refuse to acknowledge that the choice of what music to acquire is driven partly by the potential listener's experience of buying the album

I do?

which by necessity includes looking at the packaging in advance of listening to the music.

No. No it doesn't. Almost all the music I buy is sight unseen. I think you're underestimating the number of people who buy through mailorder and see them for the first time after they've bought them.

Even in a shop it's of no consequence. If I found a recording I wanted to hear I'd buy it. That doesn't stop me from thinking "well, this looks shit."

(unless humans lose all drive to compete)

Horror of horrors!

[maRi]

is this one competitive enough?


it's a great drive.

[flies]

ok. If the major issue here is the interaction between the packaging and one's experience of listening to the album after acquiring it, then i have missed the point. My opinion on this matter is already on record: not much interaction there in my experience. I will say that participating in this thread has encouraged me to look for a greater connection, which i have found to some small extent. (online debates are therefore not entirely pointless.)

i do see concern about the role packaging plays with advertising in fear's post (eg "[buyers and sellers] must mediate between music making and music listening"), and this was what i was addressing. I must also agree that no, in fact, you don't 'by necessity' see the packaging before buying it. There are a few other points i made that were a bit uncharitable and those definitely don't stand up, but i think, fear, that youre not addressing the central drive of my post, which is that advertising does not destroy art, and, more fundamentally, distribution of goods is not simply a matter of transportation.

i'm not presenting an opinion on whether humans should give up the drive to compete, i'm just saying it's not going to happen any time soon. wanting it is like wanting to be taller: it's just not going to happen. The only reason i even brought it up is that if people feel connected to a given project, say the release of an album or the management of a store or distro, then they will work to make that project a success. This means influencing people's choice of music listening. i don't have a problem with that, and it seems to me like you do, fear. At the very least, if it is a problem, then the costs of fixing it (loss of capability or will to pursue personal projects=loss of liberty) are too great to make it a worthwhile endeavor.

[Richard Pinnell]

for me, packaging is much much more about creating an appropriate "container" for the music as a hopefully permanent addition to someone's home/collection than it is any kind of sales device.

Yep thats it in a nutshell. Add for me the pleasure gained from actually creating the packaging too and that sums it up pretty much.