I read though a lot of these comments. Took a while but got though them and I am shocked. Some people claim they wouldn't go to a show because of the poster and they are suppose to be true fans to the band SNFU. A true fan would go regardless if they like the poster or not.
The poster was not comissioned to be made by SNFU, actually it was SCT. The last poster was for the same band too, Really this is not a SNFU poster it is a Langley All ages postar and was asked to be made by SCT(because of the style used in the first one that No means No headlined and the Evaporators). In fact there wouldn't have been one made at all, which would have been sad. A poster needed to be made to let people know their is a show. Langley has not had many All ages shows in a while because things have gotten out of control in the past. Hopefully this one attracts a more postive look at all ages shows. I am glad to that SNFU will get to play for the youth of Langley, they need to see some more really good bands!
I break down the poster like this:
Graphically it is good.
Is it relevant to the band that commisioned the artist to create the poster, yes.
It does have the audience in mind.
At the end of it all I don't like it, it's not a style I am fond of. The factor that seems to be very important here. The reason people are so split on this one(Ithink)is their own personal taste, and that is ok.
SNFU are still hardcore, it's just not what passes for "hardcore" these days. Their new record is sooo good.
Anyways, yes the fish skeletons are something that have been associated with the band forever, I think it's just the colors that miss the mark.
As for the 14 year old thing, I was joking too. Plow isn't nearly as creepy as i made him out to be
I love SNFU, have listened to em for years, and I really think this fits really well. they're really not serious about anything. goofy as hell.
THEY ARE NOT HARDCORE at all anymore.
plus they had an album called "If You Swear You'll Catch No Fish" .... so it's entirely appropriate to use this visual.
now im not familiar with SNFU, i gather theyre pretty hardcore punk, but really, howm any times has childlike cartoony stuff been used for punk bands...maybe im way off the mark...but whatabout fotheringhams stuff with mudhoney? how is that so spot on for a band like mudhoney, and this is so way off for SNFU? like i said, i dont know em, but maybe its a juxtaposition irony thing again, happens all the time.
My comment never talked about luring 14-year girls, if you re-read it. I was trying to state that the target market for this show probably isn't what maxflo imagined it to be. Also, I was making a joke.
I think the guy in the boat has a good carnival feel to it, and the fish bones are definitely a tribute to Chi Pig and SNFU. Based on what I've seen over the years as a SNFU fan ( and a fan of Chi Pig's art ) - I would say this does work as a SNFU poster. I suppose it might suit SNFU more if it was Black and White as opposed to the bright colour...
Maybe we should ask the band what they think?
SNFU was my first show as well. 1986. I've seen them more times that I can count in the last 18 years. They have changed their esthetic several times over the years but this poster just doesn't work.
And as for the theroy of luring 14 year old punk girls to the show, it might have worked if Mr. Plow wasn't on the bill. He's creepy!
This is an all ages show at the Langley Civic Centre.
As far as I can see it, this is a really clever strategy:
1) Make a poster that all of the punk 14-year old girls will like
2) All of the punk 12-18-year old boys will all go to the show because all of the punk 14-year old girls are going.
3) Show sells out, band is happy, girls buy posters.
people now come to you guys because they want something that looks 'seripop'..
that's different than imposing your design on a band because you're getting paid by the bar to make a poster, without any input from the band...
I think bands get what they deserve though.. If you don't send shit out to the bar or contact them in advance, you get whatever they make.
I hate olives... they smell like ink to me
we literally have phone calls and meetings with analbatross that go on for HOURS in order to represent them wellafter working for em for more than 2 years we don't need to talk as much cause we get what they want and they trust us but we still talk to those guys costantly
we respect them greatly and want the art to reflect thier music/vibe
yea thats kinda what i meannt..but i left that part out....what about a band like arab on radar/chinese stars and mat brinkman? analbatross and seripop? it seems like those bands really trust the artists and let them do whatever the fuck they feel like... not to say that there isnt any communication though.
yes bands and lables do hire artists to desing material for them.
when working with a band there is ALOT of back and forth dialogue about "vibe" and aestetic
the desinger doesn't (or rarely_ arbitraly makes it up)
doing desing forr any client is a collaboration and if you can't collab then your aren'rt a desinger
yeah, i just chose metal arbitrarily for my questions...
i think more than anything, i just want to see some sort of comprehensive index and read up on an exhaustive history of a given genre's visual aesthetic, to see highlight how things changes, not just what those changes were.
well, most bands (or the label) will hire an artist to do their promotional material, record art, etc....so essentially, isnt the artist developing the imagery associated with the band? thats what it seems like to me.
Related note: are there any metal art books out there? I really want to look into this kind of stuff. I really want to focus in on a genre and sort of chart the aesthetic evolutions or changes. I think metal would be a pretty cool place to start.
Yeah, Maxflo, that's what I was looking for! Do you know the history behind those changes though? Like, do you chalk it up to strictly evolution? Would you say it was sort of a conscious decision? Was it artist, or band, or other that caused those changes. I think that's what I'm trying to get at. Like what has historically been the cause of the changes? My guess would be that it's a combo of everything, but I'm curious -- because I'm not well versed in that.
Metal art has changed a lot over time. It has actualy changed a bunch in just the last 3 or 4 years. Believe it or not.
Think of the covers from the 80's metal scene compared to the covers for todays releases. Very, very, very different. Lots of similar themes but considerably different style and execution.
i agree with maxflo.
as far as shawny's points- yes , aestectic evolves and changes over time.
the thing is there has to be LOGICV behind that evolution.
you can't just make a neurossis poster with kittens and ribbons and expect people to "get it' because there is nothing to get.
there has to be some kind of reasoning behind the change, you can't challenge your audence visually when your only concept is to make something "pretty"
"With metal there is far less room for change than say for avante rock. Pretty easy to understand really. It's not brain surgery ."
Oh, I agree completely...but that's kind of my question...is there such little wiggle room that there is a near permanent aesthetic in place? Unless you're just referring to wiggle room for commercial artists (again, agreed, it's commercial art, not an art print, though I often argue for the blurring of that line, or that one doesn't mean it can't be the other, etc.). Because, I guess bands can decide to make a concerted effort to adopt a certain aesthetic, and then contract artists to realize that aesthetic. So, is it the bands that decide an aesthetic? or artists? I'm not really well-read on the subject historically. How did the metal aesthetic come to be?
"i guess im just too much of an art fag to get this concept."
Leave the band names off of your posters and make art prints.
I think their is some wiggle room as far as any genre's standard asthetic. Some genres more than others. With metal there is far less room for change than say for avante rock. Pretty easy to understand really. It's not brain surgery .
...looking back on Seripop's Slayer poster, maybe I just mixed up two posters, because there only seems to be one complaint regarding what I was talking about. So ummm, maybe disregard what I said? Hah!
(FUCK THAT POSTER IS GOOD THOUGH)
Maximum Flouride, I told you we agreed on more than Goat Horn. I'm with you on this one.
Rob Weychart, I agree with what you said completely. I think Seripop managed to do what you were talking about for their Slayer poster, but if memory serves, there were complaints that it wasn't Slayer enough. The thing is, it was totally fucked up and had a skull, so it wasn't even that radical of a departure. Just a nice little detour of the usuals, and even then they got a bit of flack. So that's kind of what I'm asking. Obviously artists aren't totally tied to the history of the visuals that accompany the styles of music they are working with, but at the same time, for those styles to change, is it necessarily a slow process? The individual artists can play within the visual genres, or add to them, but an overall visual aesthetic is bound to change at some point. So I guess my question is, how does that change come about? Or can it? Will traditional metal imagery always be metal imagery, but just grow to accept more? Will metal one day evoke other images? Hmmm...
"i dont see anything wrong with this poster...the design and composition is great...nice colors...everythings pretty on. i dont think it matters whether or not it directly represents the band.
an artist cant be so narrowminded as to stick with one sort of art theme that embodies them all the time.
If that is how you really feel about it than you are in the wrong business. These are PROMO posters not art prints. It isn't narrowmindedness at all. It is called commercial art. These posters have a job to do. If they don't represent the band or the gig then they are not doing their job.
It is the most simple concept in the world. That is if you can manage to keep your ego out of the process.
If the band themselves hires you to do something out of the ordinary for them then that is a different story. If you are left to your own devices on a project that the band is removed from then you OWE it to them to try and represent them in thier absence from the project. Just going off willy nilly and making whatever you want with no regard for the band is wrong. Wrong in every sense of the meaning. Especialy if you have plans to sell the prints and make money after the fact.
There needs to be a trust if the band is not involved in the process.
I just can't believe anybody would see it any differently. There is simply no logical argument for this thinking.
As for this poster. It is npt a stly I like, but it is well done in the style it fits into. I just don't see how it fits SNFU in any way. Maybe it does and I am so out of touch with the world that I just don't know.
I do know that I like SNFU and if I saw this on the street I would not look at it long enough to even know who it was for. Mostly because when I see a poster done in this style my mind immedietly tells me it is for music I don't like.Or that SNFU had changed their sound so radicly that I would no longer like seeing them. So you know... it wouldn't work in the advertising context.
I don't think creating imagery that's appropriate for a band necessarily requires the artist to mimic a hackneyed aesthetic stereotype. A metal poster need not be dripping with umlauts and swords and winged demons, and a punk poster need not be some shitty 60th generation photocopy of a bunch of safety pins. A smart designer can generate unexpected imagery that successfully evokes what the band is about. These surprisingly successful juxtapositions usually make for the most striking posters because they actually engage the viewer rather than merely pandering to them. In this case, though (and I don't mean to insinuate that Scott is not a smart designer), we have a pretty image that, for me, really doesn't represent the band at all.
in advertising there's a target audience. there's a fine line between giving the audience what they want and what they don't yet know they want. this misses the mark therefore it's poor design. great decoration though.
One question I've been thinking of for a long time is...I'm a big supporter of choosing appropriate imagery for posters, and I don't think this is (though it is a great image)...but I've been thinking, how does what constitutes appropriate imagery ever change if everyone is worried about designing to suit what has come to visually represent the band. Like, metal has a historically rich visual aesthetic. But, is it trapped in that aesthetic forever? I know that most are going to say it isn't the poster designer's job to create a new aesthetic, and I wouldn't either, but, just in a more general sense, how does one go about creating a new visual language for a band or style of music? Can it be done? I'm not arguing one way or another, it'sjust something I'm really interested in right now.
You know . . . I don't know these bands, but sometimes fans of a band can be turned on to different styles of illustration and design just be the mere introduction of it through a band they really like.
I know it's happened to me plenty of times.
It might not be the case here, but I think that that is a possibility that is often overlooked during these discussions.
i dont see anything wrong with this poster...the design and composition is great...nice colors...everythings pretty on. i dont think it matters whether or not it directly represents the band.
an artist cant be so narrowminded as to stick with one sort of art theme that embodies them all the time.
"Any fan of this band would most likely hate this"
That quote sums it up. If it doesn't appeal to the people you are trying to bring to the show, then what is the point?
Nice design, but definitely made for the wrong band.
Poster people dig this because the graphics rule. It's a nice looking poster.
Any fan of this band would most likely hate this. It has absolutely nothing to do with their image and/or vibe. From a "design perspective" this completely fails.
So I guess my next question is, what makes a great poster?
Just the art?
The artists ego?
The appropriatness of the poster as it relates to promoting the band?
What order of importance are those things applied?