Packaging

[flies]

the main thing i like about CD packaging is that it keeps the CD from scratching better than a CD book.

Simply put, to me the packaging is not important at all.

[flies]

even song titles often simply fly past me. I'm not saying that these materials are useless or even extraneous; i just listen to the music and dont spend time looking at the packaging.

[user_353]

I GOT YER PACKAGE RIGHT HERE *points to zipper*

[bryan]

you know what sucks about packaging?

when you purchase what you assume to be a new cd - jewel case fully intact, maybe shrinkwrapped, might have one of those annoying spine labels that comes apart in 3 pieces and leaves gunky residue on the case permanently - and you bring the cd home, open it.. and little bits of plastic tumble out that were once a part of the hub on the tray that holds the disc. the disc won't stay in the case properly anymore and slides around - possibly leading to scuffs on the delicate plastic cd surface and rendering the music unplayable.

that sucks.

i like digipacks. just say no to CRACK(s).

PS what's wrong with letting the way something looks attract you? you adopted that puppy from the pound because it was cute - nothing wrong with that.

[grisha]

Yes, Schnee. Austrians... Anyway, i will try to be clearer. The lack of packaging does not take anything away from music but can add to it. The assumed importance is up to you, up to musicians.

[sound plague]

I won't admit to being anything other than the pleb I am but nice packaging makes me happy. If there's a conversation regarding the deeper context behind packaging you'll most likely find me off to the corner admiring my most recently purchased object.

[faster]

A discussion along these lines happened at Bagatellen once. In it, I said:

"Uh, yeah, that stuff matters of course. Not always, though, and it doesn't have to. The best thing I've heard in a long time was on a cdr that someone gave me (which I subsequently purchased, of course...)

"The packaging *shouldn't* matter, I suppose, but in a way it's like a job interview: while a person's apparel doesn't reflect how well they can do a job, the effort they put into looking appropriate reflects how serious they are about wanting the job. It's a small way of showing how much you care.

"I know when I've toured and sold cdrs, the ones with distinctive/special packaging have been the hottest items. Hand-sewn sleeves, unique photographs, and hand-colored images have personal human effort and love in them, and everybody wants a little more love in their music."

and

"Whether it "should" matter or not is rather moot, I suppose, but I take issue with the notion that it is part of the "listening" experience! It is part of the overall aesthetic experience, to be sure, but, unless you're making sounds with the packaging (which I do, actually, but not when I'm listening), then it is a separate (but arguably inseparable) experience.

"This is not to say that it is an important distinction, for it is not. None are, really, but we can't just sit here on our hands cuz these hairs ain't gonna just up and split themselves, if you know what I'm sayin."

[user_548]

"Whether it "should" matter or not is rather moot, I suppose, but I take issue with the notion that it is part of the "listening" experience! It is part of the overall aesthetic experience, to be sure, but, unless you're making sounds with the packaging (which I do, actually, but not when I'm listening), then it is a separate (but arguably inseparable) experience.

"This is not to say that it is an important distinction, for it is not. None are, really, but we can't just sit here on our hands cuz these hairs ain't gonna just up and split themselves, if you know what I'm sayin."

Okay, I hear ya. I'll concede to that. But that doesn't mean that I'll make that distinction in the future because I'll probably forget about it.

[grisha]

Ha, Joe, right on. 7th Harmonic, come to erstquake and i'll show you how to remove spine labels.

[maRi]

Mari: what is "right"? what is "frame"? what is "mind"? ok, we get it

who's 'we'?
anyhow, i wouldn't be questioning basic concepts; it's the relationships that (people assume/feel/believe) hold between those that interest me. in this case it's 'the right frame' and 'the frame of mind'. for me - a frame is right if it is functional, a framed mind is unfunctional.

[crawjo]

When I got Sean Meehan's double-cd release last year, I did the exact opposite of what Brian did. I ripped the packaging apart with my hands, threw it in the trash and then shoved the discs into jewelcases.

I think there is a fine line one has to walk between having the packaging complement the music and having it overwhelm it. A good example is that Ayler box that came out on Revenant a couple years ago. They just tried too hard with that one, making the discs like this magical treasure you would find only after you dug through all the other stuff they threw in there. Not exactly a setup that encourages repeated listening. Ditto for some of the unnecessarily oversized packages that you see from time to time.

[user_2298]

good packaging is nice, but my god if the digipak isn't the worst invention of the 20th century.

i'd like to add that DIW's packaging consistently makes me jizz. such beautiful, beautiful paper.

[Richard Pinnell]

I can see how the packaging looks nice, but sound and image can't be magically "added" together. They can sit side by side, certainly.

Does the collaboration begin when you play the music and are are looking at the packaging? Do you have to look for the whole hour, or just every few minutes to refresh the image? A crap design (like the kind of thing I'd be capable of producing) would certainly result in some ugly mess, but once the music was on (or, rather, once it was bought), what difference would it make?

Fear i really feel the need to pull in your reins and stop you from running away with a whole load of suppositions about my feelings towards packaging that I frankly do not hold.

I have not mentioned the word 'collaboration', you did. I do not feel I am 'collaborating' as such with the musicians, merely enhancing the publication via presentation that I hope builds on ideas I perceive in the music. I have only ever suggested that the art and the music sit side by side. I have not suggested anything more than that!
I have also made clear that the packaging is not as important as the music, so my credit sits in small type inside, whilst the musicians in large type on the outside.
Why do you have this idea that a collaboration starts or finishes somewhere? there is merely a painting or photograph that comes with the music that I personally feel compliments the overall piece of art. The music does not change, as I have made clear all along, and I agree that crap packaging would make no difference to the music once it was playing, but then I have not suggested it would at any point!

I'm not sure why you are tring to extend my words into some greater meaning than I have intended them for. I enjoy music first and foremost. Give me the same piece of music in two different packagings, I'll take the one I think looks nicest and works best with the music. I try and extend these ideas into what I do with my label, thats all.

At the end of the day you take offence to the idea of music being packaged creatively, artfully or however to create something that is essentially a product for sale. That ideal essentially makes any discussion with you on the merits of packaging a bit daft as surely you disapprove of any piece of music once it is placed into packaging and made available for purchase?

[lukaz]

Recently i had a converstion w a friend of mine about the importance of sleeve designs cuz we 're both part of big exhebition of sleeves in Shitenia. He was not talking about meaning of sleeves in different context, but the function of sleeves thru how we ''use '' music. And in this manner he concluded that the sleeve may have bigger importance or effect on consumer/ listener when he/she is actually buying it than when he is listening (''using'') it. Of course it may have importance at first couple of listens but when you listen to the cd or lp for the X time you just go for the music. And how do we usually hold music? In a way that we don't see the sleeves at all.

[fearandpanic]

Fear i really feel the need to pull in your reins and stop you from running away with a whole load of suppositions about my feelings towards packaging that I frankly do not hold.

All suppositions I have are based on your first post here (and, to a lesser extent, your second one)—nothing more. Also, in each case, except where replying to someone else, I quoted the relevant comment to prevent much "running away" with ideas. You'll admit that I'm not overstating the high regard you hold for the surrounding packaging when you say things like "at least half of the inspiration for me to set up a CD label was the opportunity to design CD sleeves again."

I have not mentioned the word 'collaboration', you did.

No, but you did say the complete work was unfinished without the contribution of the packaging and the texts. "Finishing" some work or other is collaborative, is it not?

I do not feel I am 'collaborating' as such with the musicians, merely enhancing the publication via presentation that I hope builds on ideas I perceive in the music. I have only ever suggested that the art and the music sit side by side. I have not suggested anything more than that!

If you're "enhancing", and espeically "building on" ideas in the music, then it's doing more than sitting by its side, clearly. As I've said, I don't have any particular problem with such a thing, it could be interesting. The fact remains that more often than not elaborate packaging is designed to entice at the buying stage, not enhance at the listening stage, and much else of what you say inclines me towards imagining it to be more of the former.

The music does not change, as I have made clear all along

This is not at all clear. It's the central point, in fact. You say you're building on it, enhancing it, and, more modestly, complimenting it, also.

I'm not sure why you are tring to extend my words into some greater meaning than I have intended them for.

I'm not, I'm really trying to deal as best as I can with what you've actually written. Personally I'm not comfortable using your work as the "playing field" for the discussion, but you introduced yourself with your work, which I wouldn't dare comment on otherwise. But your first post was so surprising to me, and the disconnection with what I appreciate in some of the musicians so great, that it provides a good example of all I object to about how packaging is often really functioning.

At the end of the day you take offence to the idea of music being packaged creatively, artfully or however to create something that is essentially a product for sale.

I'd object to any artwork that's "essentially" a product for sale. That's really its essence, Richard?

As I've said (I think numerous times) I have no problem with creative or artful design. My stop is at manipulative design, at self-consciously desire-creating "packages", and the kind of thinking about art and music that arises in the heads of people trying to sell it to you.

That ideal essentially makes any discussion with you on the merits of packaging a bit daft as surely you disapprove of any piece of music once it is placed into packaging and made available for purchase?

No, surely, I don't. I object to the idea of packaging developing artistic pretensions about itself, and to it hoping to instill "desire" before the purchase is made.

[bryan]

good packaging is nice, but my god if the digipak isn't the worst invention of the 20th century.

care to qualify that? or do we just leave it as personal opinion?

It would appear that you like jewel cases, gas chambers, privatized health care, and CNN better than digipaks..

here's why i like digipaks:

W) standard format - fits on the shelf with a SPINE that I can easily read and actually find the music to listen to (tho I like an art object.. if I can't find the music because there is no concern given to legibility... then it aggravates me with its pretention - as if the music / object is "that good" to where I have to make extra effort to find the damn thing on the shelf vs. all the other "well-behaved" discs that provide clear labeling) WHat's next? CDs packaged inside of live ducks?

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

Y) functional - one piece usually with the plastic tray glued to the cardboard sleeve. When it comes to packaging, functionality is #1.. if a package fails at this simple requirement then it may very well be that the music is just an excuse to play dress up.

Z) wears well - nicks, marrs, scratches on the case simply add character and tell me that it's been well-played vs. jewel cases that merely look crappy when scraped messed up, etc...

[bryan]

7th Harmonic, come to erstquake and i'll show you how to remove spine labels.

I'm gonna be there.. will you buy me a CD?




just kidding about the 2nd part...

[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.

[bryan]

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

[flies]

I'm not sure why you are tring to extend my words into some greater meaning than I have intended them for.

I'm not, I'm really trying to deal as best as I can with what you've actually written. Personally I'm not comfortable using your work as the "playing field" for the discussion, but you introduced yourself with your work, which I wouldn't dare comment on otherwise. But your first post was so surprising to me, and the disconnection with what I appreciate in some of the musicians so great, that it provides a good example of all I object to about how packaging is often really functioning.

It might be helpful if you could spell out these objections for us, positively, perhaps with some real-world examples. I'm guessing it's something about marketing interfering with artistry.