Packaging

[Richard Pinnell]

Here we go again... (sigh)

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."

Well I'm glad you agree they are suppositions anyway. You have used words like 'fetishistic' about my interest in good sleeve design which I take offence at, but then it seems that any attempt to produce a product that looks nice and is desirable is a heinous sin to you, so I guess I should expect that level of over-reaction from you.

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 don't think most people here would have read my words that way. I merely said I wouldn't send out the CD alone without the sleeve as it would feel unfinished. I'm not sure that that comment suggests I feel I am collaborating directly with the musicians, but read into it as you wish.
Cath001 as a publication is unfinished without the sleeve. The piece of music is finished as soon as the master is sent in for pressing. To me that distinction is pretty clear and obvious. God knows why I am arguing about something like that.

If you're "enhancing", and espeically "building on" ideas in the music, then it's doing more than sitting by its side, clearly.

That really isn't remotely clear to me. The imagery builds on ideas from the music and then it sits beside it. It enhances the whole package, but it still sits beside the music. Again, no idea why you can't grasp that.

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.

Much of this comment is pretty insulting to me as an artist really. Suggesting I worked hard on the thoughts and ideas behind those sleeve designs purely to make the CDs saleable and not because I wanted to create a piece of art to accompany the music is characteristic of the kind of blinkered view you seem to have of me judging by the way you attack most of my posts these days in several threads.
Yes of course I also want the final products to be desirable, as do 99% of all CD labels and musicians releasing CDs today in the modern world. To suggest this is my key driver when I set about working on a sleeve however is very wide of the mark.

For the record (no idea why I need to justify myself, but hey ho) I have budgeted every Cathnor release to make me massive losses, and the first two releases have done precisely that so far. I am not some capitalist pig, I am a guy that loves music and loves CDs that is throwing money away releasing music in as nicely designed packages that I can, for the pleasure of a few people like myself. I have given away almost as many copies as I have sold (as many people on these threads could testify to), so quite frankly are there not more deserving targets for your reccurring attacks?

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.

In my very first post I made it clear that the music does not change, and I have said it again and again. It is abundantly clear that is how I feel. Yes the whole package of a Cathnor release is enhanced, and added to by the artwork, but the music does not change and at no point have I suggested it did, quite the reverse.

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?

OK, so my choice of words wan't perfect here. However any CD placed into a package and placed on sale becomes a product. If you purchase that CD you are purchasing a product. The essence of the work is indeed as a work of art, but if you want to hear the music, you buy a product. Simple as that, the two things are inextricably linked in the real world.

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.

Again, it annoys me that you have to draw a line between creative and artful and 'desire-creating'. I design sleeves in the hope they become objects that people want to own for their artistic worth. my market is not HMV, its intelligent, thoughtful people that I very much want to connect with through my art. If that makes my work desirable I'm very proud of that.

I object to the idea of packaging developing artistic pretensions about itself, and to it hoping to instill "desire" before the purchase is made.

Again I make the same point. in your very black and white view of things, objects are either of artistic worth or they are saleable products, why they can't be both I have no idea.

[fearandpanic]

Suggesting I worked hard on the thoughts and ideas behind those sleeve designs purely to make the CDs saleable and not because I wanted to create a piece of art to accompany the music is characteristic etc.

It's you who has suggested this, not me, with obviously pointed comments like "Yep, a package, a product" and "essentially a product for sale", etc. This second comment is almost synonymous with what you deny above, "purely to make the CDs saleable." You say something in the last post about "not choosing your words carefully" there, maybe that's why I genuinely can't grasp your position on this topic.

For the record (no idea why I need to justify myself, but hey ho)

Richard, you introduced yourself and your work; that's why. And in a way that invited some response. Do you think I'd direct anything at you otherwise?

As I've said already, this disussion should not be run through the filter of Cathnor and your work; I've no desire to pursue a "discussion" in which theoretical criticisms are taken to be personal ones.

[bryan]

people are complacent.. if an interesting and nice CD design gives a worthwhile recording a little extra bit of oomph to entice the discerning music buyer, I'm all for it.

other than that, we like to be led around by the nose. if buying this disc connects me with my social group, then maybe that is enough... as long as the music reinforces rather than undermines my lifestyle.

in general... people are given too much credit / not enough to make the choices in their lives. as far as I can see.. critical thinking is soundly and widely discouraged.

fear - I agree with you more than I'd care to admit.. but not the heavy-handed application of it. Richard - you kinda set yourself up for this since the only specific packaging really being talked about is Cathnor.

but fellas, give me a few minutes to grab a bite from McDonald's then I'll gas up my SUV and swing by to pick y'all up. We'll head over to Best Buy where I can show you a few CDs to pick up for $9.99 each. I take it neither of you have heard Fishscale yet?

[Richard Pinnell]

Well fear if other people here find my words to be as difficult to understand as you do then by all means I'll put my hands up and try and express myself more clearly next time.

As for not taking this as a personal attack, well you have taken pot shots at me now in several threads because I do not seem to fit in whith your somewhat extreme view of how music should me made, released or discussed, so you can surely understand how I feel?
I just wanted to make the point very clear that my label is hardly the best working model for a capitalist venture and surely there are far better targets to have a go at in more suitable places than this? Thats all.

[grisha]

Well fear if other people here find my words to be as difficult to understand as you do then by all means I'll put my hands up and try and express myself more clearly next time.

i assure you it's not the case, as much as i can speak for the others. found a good quote, btw:

I hate jewel boxes. I figure that if someone is going to spend money on a Cut CD, they should at least get something special for it, not just some flimsy paper cover in a jewel box. I use heavy cardboard stock, to give a sense of "materiality", and all the covers are screen printed (sérigraphie). Screen printing, as opposed to offset printing, produces richer colours. There's also a "look" to screen printing which appeals to me.

Jason Kahn, in interview to Dan Warburton, July 2004.

[Richard Pinnell]

OK, I'm probably asking for it, but I've been meaning to write somewhere about the packaging of Cath001, the Boghossian disc, so this is as good a place as any.

The album, for all its failings, is made up in three parts. The first two tracks are pieces of music performed solo by John Tilbury and Mark Wastell respectively. The two pieces are improvisations, but made within some distinct guidelines provided by the composer regarding length and the overall way the music should 'feel'. These two pieces are then digitally treated in a subtle manner by Boghossian. (nothing added, just treatments to the raw sound).
The two treated tracks appear as tracks one and two on the album. the third track is created when the first two are layered over each other with very little further treatment.

So... my artwork response was to try and create a piece that utilised similar methodology in its creation, and yet also reflected the mood of the musical work. I began by selecting two digital photos I had taken that were part of a series I had made of decaying, run down architecture and structures within the London underground railway system. Despite having a French composer the music had a very Londony feel to me, and it is quite an austere, heavy work, so this directed my choice of photos.
The two pics are of a crumbling plaster wall deep underground and a glass car park tariffs sign that had been covered in graffiti and then cleaned up unsuccessfully, leaving a smeared white canvas on glass for graffiti writers to scratch their names into.

The two photos were then treated similarly to the music tracks, the colours were adjusted so that they both had a blue-grey feel, which is how I hear the music, and the images were cropped to identical size.
I then layered the two images over each other with transparency fiilters applied to create the final work, which exists with no extra treatments added.

My choice of the oversized digipack format for the Cathnor discs was made so that the image had more room to breathe than the usual small square of card. (My only regret about the demise of vinyl has been the reduction in size of the sleeve designer's canvas) I also chose digipaks ahead of jewel cases as they present the cover image better with the image more immediate rather than placing it behind plastic.

Finally I chose not to add any type to the cover image. (several people advised me that this was not a good move if I wanted to sell CDs!) I wanted the images to try and represent my personal artistic take on the music, and so my love of typography was kept in check to allow this to happen as best it could.

I'm not sure if this helps the discussion at all, but I hope it shows that much thought went into the design and that my input as the designer is perhaps more than someone just there to make something marketable.

[hatta]

This is an interesting topic and I fear we have kind of gone off on a diversion. We've been disusing a false dichotomy of the music being primary and the packaging being primary. Generally when we pull back and look at what everyone (on all sides) has said it comes to this: the music is primary but hey if the packaging is nice, great.

There is an extra dimension though that has led to further digressions and that is the case of someone who appreciates packaging from a design perspective. These people can appreciate an album that is well designed separate from the music. In some cases we are talking about professional or near professional designers and for them they'd look at packaging in the same way an architect will look at a building and see things and appreciate things that others may not. It is their "thing" to appreciate design.

Finally we have the packaging of the CD as a marketing tool. Clearly this happens all the time, I'm sure the pop groups made by committee are also designed by committee. Hardly an issue in the tiny labels that are generally discussed here. So this is pretty much a strawman argument in these cases. But not an incorrect assessment, its just that we don't have any representatives of Virgin on the board. There perhaps has been a bit of these small labels taking offence at things targeted at these huge labels, but things have seemed too muddled to me to pursue that conflation much further. In general I'd just say these are valid criticisms but targeted incorrectly.

[maRi]

my market is not HMV, its intelligent, thoughtful people that I very much want to connect with through my art.

so when do you choose your market - prior to, after, or during the artistic process?

a series I had made of decaying, run down architecture and structures within the London underground railway system.

would really like to see that...

[negative potential]

Yes. This relationship doesn't have to be one of aggresively crass fetishising, though.

fear, I don't mean to steal any thunder from your rant against packaging by abruptly veering off topic, but I really hate to see the word fetish (mis)used in this way.

There is simply too much vulgar marxist use of the word "fetish" as a synonym for "over-appreciation" or "exaggerated use of" or just "overvaluation" in general.

This is a really annoying practice that goes back to when Lenin and Trotsky went around denouncing their social-democratic critics as "fetishists" of this or that whenever being subject to criticism.

The original use of "fetish" by Marx, in the first chapter of Volume 1 of Capital, is meant in an entirely different way.

By the "fetish character of commodities" (not physical commodities, like CDs or their packaging, but the commodity-form of human labor), Marx is referring to the tendency of economic phenomena to appear as objectively valid laws, rather than as emergent phenomena of independently-acting social agents. Thus economic depressions, debt and other financial crises, prices of commodities, etc. are viewed as independently existing objects with their own objective qualities, rather than as phenomena that are the result of the accumulated effect of human practice.

Marx is trying to describe the inverted character of a society where humans are not the masters of social processes, but rather are subjected to the effects of social processes, even though in the last instance humans themselves are the agents of such processes.

The section on the "fetish character of the commodity" (commonly vulgarized, especially in English, as "commodity fetish") has nothing to do with scolding people for liking nicely packaged objects or luxuries. In fact, nice packaging on a CD belongs squarely to its properties as a use-value.

[hatta]

Anyway beyond these issues there are some interesting aspects of packaging to me. One is the idea of creating a "complete package" that is where the music and the art, while not being inseparable, are complementary. I think of some of Keith Rowe's covers, always made after the music but reflecting ideas that he feels were in his mind during the music creation process.

I think that in this area there are two interesting takes. The first is the artist working in response to the music and the second is the artist designed package. I think in the post above mine here, Richard does a good job of discussing working in response to the music. I think that this is an area with a long tradition well outside the album cover genre. Artists have often used music as an inspiration and have painted (or whatever) in response to them. So in this case the packaging can be an interesting complement to the music; you are giving another persons take on the music in a graphical form.

The artist designed package to me OTOH does allow for something to be created which is a part of the music. How one uses the artwork in conjunction with the music is unimportant, the very concept that the artist thinks it adds to the music in some way is interesting in and of itself. Perhaps it is an image that evokes a similar mood of the album, or contrasts it in some ways. Perhaps it is a manifesto that lays out the artists exact thoughts on their music (as is the case with the new Mattin/Malfatti album). 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 may not be essential at all, but it is there.

[fearandpanic]

fear, I don't mean to steal any thunder from your rant against packaging by abruptly veering off topic, but I really hate to see the word fetish (mis)used in this way

I'm aware that this word has a special technical meaning in Marxist thought. Though I wasn't getting into that here; only the common usage sense of "excessive or irrational devotion" to some thing or activity.

Also, while we're talking terminology, don't call what I have to say ranting, please. Or apply it equally.

[negative potential]

only the common usage sense of "excessive or irrational devotion" to some thing or activity.

But such usage often is intended to imply some critique along Marxist longs. OK, you didn't mean it this way, so never mind.

Also, while we're talking terminology, don't call what I have to say ranting, please. Or apply it equally.

Ranting doesn't necessarily have negative connotations for me, so you shouldn't take it that way.

I first encountered the term as a wee lad over 12 years ago when I bought a book called "The Mondo 2000 User's Guide to the New Edge." I usually mean "rant" in that sense whenever I use the word.

[fearandpanic]

Hardly an issue in the tiny labels that are generally discussed here. So this is pretty much a strawman argument in these cases. But not an incorrect assessment, its just that we don't have any representatives of Virgin on the board.

Small businesses are often run with the same ideologies and business practices as larger ones. In fact, this same small market often intensifies some of these features.

Yes, this all does take place on a smaller scale, but that doesn't mean such practices are automatically more excusable.

[Dohol]

Hardly an issue in the tiny labels that are generally discussed here. So this is pretty much a strawman argument in these cases. But not an incorrect assessment, its just that we don't have any representatives of Virgin on the board.

Small businesses are often run with the same ideologies and business practices as larger ones. In fact, this same small market often intensifies some of these features.

Yes, this all does take place on a smaller scale, but that doesn't mean such practices are automatically more excusable.

I sincerely doubt that a small independent record label qualifies as a small business. I think you have to make profit to join that club.
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.

As far as packaging, anything that's easy to open so I can get to whats inside.







And it's gotta' look real purty..

[jon abbey]

inspired by my man fear, avatar change...

[fearandpanic]

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.

Where I'd have cause for concern is where the very ideas that have brought this situation about begin to be echoed in the terminology surrounding music (particularly music that appears to reject it.)

[bryan]

Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket.

Can you blame me if I bathe regularly so that my wife will like me?

"It's what's inside that counts"

yeeeeeaaahhh right..

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

Why should a small label apologize for using CD covers as advertisement in the same way a larger label would? Morally, I have no problem with it. THere's tons of info out there for people to find out if the music inside the package is worth purchasing.

If there are some sexy eai artists out there, maybe we should see some "mug shot" style covers... ... ..

[Dohol]

Ahhhhahaha... That Orwell quote has made my day.

[bryan]

inspired by my man fear, avatar change...

ooohhh.. man.. have you got blood on your hands now...

[fearandpanic]

inspired by my man fear, avatar change...

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