> what were you thinking, seriously, when you were making Brutaal? Well, the name came ﬁrst, with no idea what the font would look like… Then I made a trip to Bangkok (friggin’ amazing place — that song is totally true — except it was four nights) and saw shapes I had never seen before*, I mean not in real life — interestingly I’d actually been drawing abtrast sketches with shapes like that since childhood, usually on restaurant napkins and stuﬀ (you know those restaurants that have tablecloths made of paper with crayons for kids to draw with? I go crazy with the red). * (840K) http://www.themicrofoundry.com/other/wat.jpg Anyway, shapes like the ngao (those spiky things at the edges of roofs), but certainly the atmosphere of Siam (to use a now-politically-incorrect term) inspired me immesurably. Take a boat on the big, ﬁlthy Chao Praya, and you’ll feel the “cockroach crawling up your spine” — to use an Armenian expression. It all feels *real*, unlike so much in the West these days. Anyway. BTW, in my Daam Entity, Brutaal is the original concept, but Cristaal was actually made into a font ﬁrst, and then Domination Available (a name taken directly from an ad I saw in Thailand) was the lurid climax, so to speak. hhp
you guys seriously need to stop using typefaces as trademarks. it doesn’t work that way. you really should be drawing your own type for some, imagine this, uniqueness. it’s really quite pathetic, i mean, these guys are paying you right? even if they aren’t you should have enough respect for your craft to know better. you should all be ashamed.
non of those hold a candle to “Squealer” larabiefonts
“you guys seriously need to stop using typefaces as trademarks. it doesn’t work that way. you really should be drawing your own type for some, imagine this, uniqueness. it’s really quite pathetic, i mean, these guys are paying you right? even if they aren’t you should have enough respect for your craft to know better. you should all be ashamed.” Whoa mr. high and mighty has spoken–so, this means that you invent all of your logos from scratch including the type treatment? if so, i’m still not impressed.
nad x, yeah that’s exactly what i mean. and if you want to talk high and mighty, it’s incorrect to refer to them as logos. they are in fact trademarks. logo is a low brow reference to logotype. meaning a purely typographic solution which most marks are not. so step oﬀ.
Dude, you can’t go wrong with this: tenaciousd.com
jay-I have seen the light and i do agree with you, I guess i diﬀer a little bit in that with so many typefaces out there -i don’t ﬁnd it neccasary to create your own face for every logo-when in fact sometimes u come upon the perfect font for the perfect “trademark” take for instance “Nike”—pretty basic type treatment but it does seem to stand the test of time peace
I’d like to clarify something. Even if only for myself. It isn’t that I wholly disagree with you, Jay, concerning your opinion on type and logos (marks). From where I sit, as a designer, it would be best to always keep in mind the originality ,or lack thereof, of a logo I might design. However, it would do my boss no favor to spend more time than has been allotted per logo. So, if the client’s budget is roomy enough for new type, then I would be nuts not to go that route. However, only IF the project necessitated it.
I said: From where I sit, as a designer, it would be best to always keep in mind the originality ,or lack thereof, of a logo I might design. I meant: From where I sit, as a designer, it would be best to always keep in mind the need for originality as it pertains to the logo I might be designing. And by this I meant… If the mark is going to have visual prominance and set the tone for the brand, I don’t see the reason to design new type as there are so many amazing fonts already available.
tiﬀany, budget is most certainly an important issue here but more important is the integrity of the client and designer. the fact is that with experience, custom display type and letterforms are really not that hard to produce. it takes a little while to become accustom to it but it is not very diﬃcult. as a matter of fact, i just ﬁnished up a trademark for a client and it took no more then 20 minutes for one mark. trust me, i’ve taught many students these same skills. it’s just a new way of working and seeing typography. you need to remove yourself from the computer for a few rounds. after a few revisions by hand, you can then move to the computer. the trick really is producing a couple of unique letterform directions that speak to the client and then focus your time on the pictographic elements. this is really no diﬀerent then how you would approach a trademark while using a text face. the diﬀerence is the time you would spend putzing around your type collection is spent producing letterforms that do a better job of describing your client in the long run. this is only one of many reasons why you should use custom letterforms. another is the fact that you can work out all the strange and interesting relationships between individual letters more ﬂuidly. a text face can’t do this as well. it’s letter combinations (except ligatures) are utilitarian. they need to work well with all other letters in the alphabet. the fact is that they don’t always do such a great job of this. custom letterforms work in and around each other accenting and stressing or pairing and diﬀerentiating with ﬂuid ease. this is why most of the best marks in design were produced in an era where designers could not be lazy. their only option was to produce trademarks by hand. in most cases if you could not do this you had trouble even pursuing a career in design. the computer has really not made this any easier. it has only illustrated the point that a text face is not a display face. nad x, i’m glad you agree. but the fact is that even with so many text faces to choose from, a text face is still not a display face. realistically though, most people producing and using type are not very type literate and many of the cheesy “typefaces” out there, are in actuality display faces. if you have trouble producing your own type, many of these faces can work with some proper optical adjustments. these sorts of faces can also provide great inspiration. although i would never purchase a “typeface” from t-26, they do in fact have many creative ideas in regard to unique or interesting letterforms. my suggestion is to use these as creative inspiration but not as a ﬁnal design for a client. as far as the nike mark is concerned don’t give it to much credit. the spacings between the “n” “i” and “k” are way to small. that said, the fact is that this mark was most likely done in the way i have described. the version you are speaking of was designed prior to the computer revolution. just because a mark looks simple does not mean it’s execution was simple. masterful works usually only look simple. as a last note (i think i already mentioned this) the use of the word logo is incorrect. logo is short for logotype. a logotype is a word mark. most trademarks are not just word marks. the correct term is trademark with the appropriate abbreviation being mark. this is more then just semantics. it’s like calling a bicycle a car. though both are forms of transportation a car is very diﬀerent from a bicycle. sorry for the long post…
»the correct term is trademark »this is more then just semantics Yes, you’re right this is more than just semantics No, you’re wrong, the correct term is not always ‘trademark’ Its possible that Gutterb
jay, it’s not the length, it’s the lack of breaks. At least use some pilcrows. hhp
steve, yes, it is more then just semantic but it is clearly you that are incorrect on the trademark terminology issue. not unless you can give us all another applicable example or replacement for the word trademark. the only other word i can think of that might be relevant is masthead. this might also help fool your client into believing that their mark is something more then it is. if i understand your last argument i think you might be getting a little over zealous. long ago i used to listen to punk rock and heavy metal and i fondly remember wanting to believe that there was some high and lofty artistic value to the music because of it’s pseudo elitism (the more obscure it is the cooler it is). i’m not debating this issue and quite frankly i don’t really see what it has to do with the terminology of logo vs. trademark. the fact still remains that logo is incorrect usage. but from the stance you are taking the word logo implies as much corporate “bullsh*t” as does trademark. so, take your pick, incorrect “corporate sludge” or correct “corporate sludge”.
sorry hrant, sometimes i just get verbal diarrhea. especially on this type of issue.
Even if one is using a prefabricated font to ‘design’ a letterhead, logo(type) or even a trademark, he or she should should take that xtra half an hour to balance it out (wheight, spacing, letterforms etc.). The interactivity between the small amount of characters in a logotype is very diﬀerent that between characters in a text. —jacques PS. it is only 30 minutes, max. 60!
» [blah blah blah] pseudo elitism [blah blah blah] »frankly i don’t really see what it has to do with the terminology of logo vs. trademark Oh, Jay, I just can’t be bothered I was going to write a reply here, but I’ve just remembered who you are, and that there’s no point. (How did I remember who you are? Because you completely misunderstood what I was saying — maybe you do it on purpose)
Nothing says Heavy Duty like Spinal Tap! Stuart :D
steve, are you kidding me? i understood and responded directly to what you said. maybe you’re just not expressing your ideas very well. let me quote you then if it makes things easier for you to follow. you said > No, you’re wrong, the correct term is not always ‘trademark’ i responded with > it is clearly you that are incorrect on the trademark terminology issue. not unless you can give us all another applicable example or replacement for the word trademark. the only other word i can think of that might be relevant is masthead. you said > Gutterb
Allright Jay, just for you… 1. My point restated clearly for you: The ﬁrst ﬁve letters of the word trademark make up a word all of their own. T-R-A-D-E This is not a coincidence. The word trade appears in the word trademark to signify that the mark exists in a context related to trade. In many countries, you can even register your trademark, so that no-one else can use it to trade with. Music, in common with many activities where an identifying symbol may be appropriate, is not always related to trade. Therefore, trademark is not always the correct term for an identifying symbol, especially in cases where (as in this thread) the symbol is not being designed for an organisation primarily concerned with trade, or a purpose primarily concerned with trade. 2.Where you did not respond directly (or otherwise) to what I said: »not unless you can give us all another applicable example or replacement for the word trademark. I pointed out the error in your directive that the correct term is ‘trademark’ — I said that this wasn’t always the case. In what way does that place upon me the obligation to come up with a term that will be correct in all situations? Jay, just use terms where they are appropriate, and if one doesn’t exist, try stringing a few words together to get your meaning over. »you might be getting a little over zealous. long ago i used to listen to punk rock and heavy metal and i fondly remember wanting to believe that there was some high and lofty artistic value to the music because of it’s pseudo elitism (the more obscure it is the cooler it is). Maybe you were talking to someone else here, can’t work out what it has to do with me. » you said > Gutterb
steve, 1. as a matter of fact, music labels, bands etc. oﬀer a product that could be classiﬁed under trade. so the term trademark still holds here. almost everything that you can legally trademark has a trademark. 2. trademark is in fact correct. so my question still holds. if it is not a trademark then what is it? it’s sure as hell not always a logotype. though the argument could be made that most bands do in fact use logotypes or word marks. 3. i took you statement > “Gutterb
cmon doesnt everyone have anything better to do then argue over the usage of “logo” and “trademark.” Im not saying there isnt a diﬀerenct.. but is it really this important? We understand what is meant by either in relation to this post..
Having thought long and hard on this, I really think the umlaut should go over the u.
Jay No. 1, the lowercase d-jay — Your siren song compels me to throw myself at the rocks, the ones right below your pedestal. Steve is not incorrect in his Gutterball/they construction. Some stylebooks make an exception to the standard its/their construction for entities such as sports teams and bands…etc…etc. The Lakers make their debut. (they) Los Angeles makes its debut. (its) Coldplay make their debut. (they) The band makes its debut. (its) At the LA Times, you’d write, “Coldplay makes its debut.” But…this construction would be changed at Spin, Rolling Stone and Sports Illustrated, among others. They treat bands/teams as they. bj
jason, you’re right. it’s not that big of a deal. it’s nothing more than a simple fact. i just ﬁnd it hard to believe that people would dispute it.
Reading that again with fresh eyes… “makes its debut” is just gobbledygook for “debuts.” but the other point I forgot to make (but who cares anyway) is…. The only G’ball logos/trademarks in this thread came from myself and David. We were using fonts that had never been used for anything, fonts that are not even for sale. Twas simply an exercise in fun. Did you begin reading at the beginning of the thread? Did you expect the D.Young treatment from two people with no involvement other than being fellow Typophiles? The typeface-as-trademarks argument that you learned at Art Center is super, but you picked the wrong thread to make your point and nobody wants to bogged down with absolutes. C’mon jay. This is a logo for a friend in a garage band, not identity for the next Metallica tour. Again, it’s Jared’s friend who’s in the band and Jared simply opened the thread for ideas. Finally, a question: Is using a completely original font (a font not even for sale) that happens to work well for an assignment any diﬀerent than making a font from scratch once the assignment comes in? That’s what happened here…very pathetic indeed. your/you
good ﬁx! Me too.
yah! turn it up to 11!
bj, are you kidding me… i’m amazed that you would pose such a ridiculous question. but to answer, i think you’re completely missing the point. no typeface can account for every individual letter pairing possible. this alone should be enough to answer your question but i will go further. because it is really much larger than this. it really is less crucial that the type is unique in its letterforms (though important, this is only a side beneﬁt). there are plenty of custom or hand done trademarks that use mundane faces like helvetica for instance. because they are done by hand means they are done with a keen sense of artistry, with emphasis placed on the letter pairings found in the word. the time spent crafting each letterform in it’s relation to other letterforms pushes these marks into a realm that no type set text face can match. the importance of doing marks by hand goes beyond originality and into craft. it’s the ﬁne crafting of each letterform into a piece of display type. this craft is also about not being lazy. typographers of the past knew many things that we are losing today due to ignorance and computer convenience. the more you discard your craft and treat it idly the more standards of excellence we lose, and the bigger the onslaught of ignorant graphic design hacks we create. if creating a trademark is as simple as turning on my computer and typing out something in a text face, than everyone with a computer and one hundred free typefaces is a graphic designer. all you are doing is making this paradigm more and more acceptable. you may think i’m an idealist but we should all be maintaining these standards. their implementation helps guarantee that we all have jobs.
I’m not disagreeing with you — you are the so-called Expert — just pointing out the things I pointed out, which you overlook because mea culpa is not in your vocab. I’m not a trademark designer nor a logo designer nor have I taken a single graphic design class but jay, this stuﬀ goes without saying. Of course you don’t just roll a font out of the box. Of course you look at letter pairings, positive/negative space, ligatures, color and weight, among a host of other things. Of course you ought to sketch stuﬀ out, but not in the gutterball instance, for us onlookers. We didn’t set craft or artistry back and we weren’t being lazy. We were having fun with a few fonts that have never seen the light of day. There’s nothing wrong with being an idealist, but it’s the arrogant manner in which you spread your recycled gospel that is so grating. Humility is a wonderful thing. Do they teach that up on the hill? bj I love Art Center, btw. I’ve been there three times. You won’t ﬁnd a better guy than Art Center grad Jeﬀ Soto. He has more humility than anyone I know. www.jeﬀsoto.com
You see Jay (W), that’s why I didn’t want to answer You’ve done it again and the good people trying to ﬁnd a mark for a band are again bogged down with this issue which is irrelevant. A degree of wandering from the topic is one thing but this is getting silly. As brieﬂy as possible: Trademark is not always the correct term, esp. when trade is not the primary purpose. In cases where trademark is not the correct term, logo may or may not be the correct term. »webster is progressive Yes and Oxford about as staid as they come, but both accept that logo is not restricted only to type. Oxford even goes so far as to suggest that logo isn’t always an abbreviation of logotype, but can be an abreviation of logogram etc. BJ »Steve is not incorrect in his Gutterball/they construction. BJ, I don’t think Jay(W) has that in mind as the error. I think that’s too subtle — he just hasn’t read the words properly, or he hasn’t grasped the idea of saying ‘this may be the case BUT I don’t think so’. He’s a serial misinterpreter, I think he uses miscomprehension as rant fuel or something OK, that’s enough. Jay(W), answer this however you like, you tempted me into a reply before, I already wish I had gone with my instincts and ignored you. Now, having used up lots of this thread on nothing, I’m going to give some more thought to the original question — ‘What typographic treatments lend themselves for eﬀective heavy metal-ness?’
“if creating a trademark is……a graphic designer.” ahhhh, at last. well done jay. well done jay. people — study with Doylad Young. then you’re going to understand what is a typeface…logo… trademark. BUT — FIRST STUDY HOW TO DRAW. BY HAND. WITH PEN. PENCIL.
I’d be very interested in seeing some of your hand-hewn trademark designs jay. Your website appears to be a domain-park portal but maybe you could post some examples, maybe you’ve posted some previously? I see you’re based in Seattle. I suppose Art Chantry is a good example of the sort of logo/trademark designer you are advocating, or am I barking up the wrong tree? Slightly confused by one thing, however. The examples posted in this thread are clearly logotypes (by your own deﬁnition) so where does all the heat regarding trademarks come from? I also ﬁnd your self-proclaimed idealism troubling, particularly in respect to a highly ﬁltered design history: “typographers of the past knew many things that we are losing today due to ignorance and computer convenience. the more you discard your craft and treat it idly the more standards of excellence we lose, and the bigger the onslaught of ignorant graphic design hacks we create.” Well, ignorant hacks will always be with us (and always have been in one way or another). Can you put a timeline to your trademark golden age?
> no typeface can account for every individual letter pairing possible It’s not that simple. — > the good people trying to ﬁnd a mark for a band are again bogged down I don’t think anybody is really being bogged down by jay (that would be stupid), except maybe feeling compelled to type a bit more than usual. And even that has a beneﬁt: arguing with people of diﬀerent rhetorical strategies hones your skills. hhp
thank you hrant, i couldn’t agree more. this topic we have gotten oﬀ on is very relevant to the issues started in this post. the fact is that people who don’t know any better stumble on to these sorts of boards and perceive them as the upper echelon of typographic pursuit. when they see that all people are doing is typing things in on there computers they begin to think this is how it’s done. i can’t tell you how many students i’ve had to guide oﬀ this path. bj, i must apologize. i had no idea you were not a designer. i’m sorry, it seems you got singled out here. it’s great though that you are even interested enough in this subject to visit a site like this. steve, the fact is that even if trade is not the primary purpose (which is very rare) and it is still not a logotype then what is it? i say if you are looking for a blanket term which is what logo has become then a better term is trademark. that’s it. this topic really needs to go no further than this. simon, sorry about the website i’m putting together something new at the moment (you know how that goes). in all actuality i was brought to this site, a few weeks back, by a friend who had said one of my marks was posted here and that people where trying to ﬁgure out what typeface it was (little did they know it wasn’t a typeface). you brought up art chantry. i teach at the same school up here as art taught at. though i don’t go for his aesthetic, i respect the work he does. many of these marks are logotypes, you are correct. they should still be done by hand though. the logotype vs. trademark debate stems from the fact that logo is thrown around with little knowledge of what it really means. as far as your last question goes, i’m not quite sure i understand what you’re getting at. david, glad to see that someone else gets the value of what i’m saying here.
Hmmm. I guess it’s no surprise that you totally mistunderstood my point(s). Unless it’s a spin tactic, which however is exactly the sort of thing that never works against me. And I think your students would beneﬁt greatly by hearing the other side of the story, not least via Typophile. hhp
“as a last note (i think i already mentioned this) the use of the word logo is incorrect.” The english language is not a set of facts and rules cast in stone. It morphs and is really controlled by common usage amongst the masses. Today, in everyday conversation, the common term for any mark that is used to ID a product, person, company, etc. is ‘logo’. People also use wordmark, trademark, logotype, bug, icon, etc. So while your historical deﬁnition has merit, it really serves no purpose to debate its use in every day language. Except for sounding elite in client meetings and/or gaining from the enjoyment in partaking in silly debates online ;o) As for using custom type for every client, if you can do it, and feel that it is so important, then more power to you. Custom type is often a great solution. That said, there are a lot of great typefaces out there that make great raw materials for a logo/logotype/trademark/whateveryouwanttocallit Personally, I don’t side with either argument…it all depends on the needs of the client, budget, timeline, etc.
alright hrant lets get down to it then. i stated “no typeface can account for every individual letter pairing possible” while you stated “It’s not that simple”. you’re being a little open ended here. care to explain in more detail. as far as this statment of yours; “arguing with people of diﬀerent rhetorical strategies hones your skills.” i agree one hundred percent. care to tell me what i’ve missed here.
*** SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION ALERT *** For your consideration, here’s “Gutterbäll” as set in Hefeweizen….
darrel, these things have all been said further up in the post. you are too quick to dismiss elitism. i ﬁnd it hard to believe that you would be here in this forum or even a designer if you did not believe in these types of social hierarchies. as a designer the only thing that separates you from the horde of people with the right tools is elitism. your sense of color, style, skill, craft with typography, etc. are all subjective and scrutinized by opinion. your mom may think she’s a designer because she has a computer but is she? maybe, but most likely not. why is that… because we as elitists don’t think she is. where are your standards? do they lie in the falsehoods of humility? i think people on this board are being hypocrites by denouncing these things.
that’s what i thought hrant…
Note however that very few people get avoided by me. So at least in this case, you are the problematic singularity. hhp
“that’s what i thought hrant…” your provocation is wearing thin, Jay. if you’d like to start a thread about the complexities of letter pairs (or whatever it is you’re after), please feel free to do so.
cool… and most people are nice. i’m not.
plain clothes, i’m done… i’ve been done for sometime now. i’d have been ﬁne moving this discussion at any point. you can’t expect someone to just leave an issue in mid debate after people continue to make unrealistic statements. what do you expect when people poke a hornets nest? that the bees will all just get along? you perceive me as being an elitist as*hole. i’m cool with that… why can’t you be?
“as a designer the only thing that separates you from the horde of people with the right tools is elitism.” All people are designers. That’s partly what makes us human. (Note some primates are also designers.)
»you are too quick to dismiss elitism. i ﬁnd it hard to believe that you would be here in this forum or even a designer if you did not believe in these types of social hierarchies Oh dear