Music is a business....business is about branding, marketing and selling your product.

....a logo helps you accomplish that.

whether that is "necessary," I dunno...

stickyfingers--you are 100% correct! Especially with the Stones. This concept that the Stones need to still be rebels totally mystifies me. They haven't been rebels in what, 40 years? They travel by private plane, stay in Four Seasons, sell tons and tons of merch at high prices, do ads for Louis Vuitton, and on and on. Me, I have zero problem with it. I just don't get those who think they still are or should be rebels. They are a corporation generating profits by entertaining the fans. What's wrong with that? It's like complaining about the price of drinks, food, parking, merch etc. If you don't like the price, don't go. Very simple. Why should they or the parking lots have to reduce the prices to make it "reasonable" to those complaining. And then what about the even less fortunate who think those "reasonable" food and parking prices still aren't reasonable. Ugh, don't get me started. I guess it's too late!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-08-27 17:06 by keefmick.

The topic of logos has come up before, and it should be mentioned that Traffic had an abstract logo before anyone else I can think of.

The most dominant name-logo in rock that I can think of is Chicago. Their albums covers were variations on that, and it dominated their public image, where people recognized it and not individual members.

With a strong logo, unless you're a hardcore fan, it's not really noticed when original members have left a group.

What about solo artists?
If Dylan had a logo, he'd probably have changed it a couple times;
making the most recent version totally unrecognizable.

not really that important except as a marketing concept and clever people should not need to be led by logos when deciding what they like and dont like.

the stones tongue logo really only represents the band from 1971 anyway, did they have one before that and if the tongue logo had never been invented for them would it have affected their music both as artists or in a commercial sense,

its there and we all identify with it easily but for me it dominates too much merchandise, i would rather see more t shorts, jumpers, jackets without the tongue logo, and have something else instead, like an album cover or picture of the band on stage, theres plenty material to choose from.

Quote
buttons67

its there and we all identify with it easily but for me it dominates too much merchandise

I agree. In terms of graphics they have settled into a very easy rut of doing a variation on the tongue logo as the emblem for whatever the current project is.

For me the worst was the Blue And Lonesome cover. It looks perfectly fine, but I can't help but think that no one involved put anything but the bare minimum of thought and effort into it.

What would a Beatles logo look like, and Apple or an artistic version of the band name?

Quote
The Sicilian
What would a Beatles logo look like, and Apple or an artistic version of the band name?

Since the Beatles Anthology they have been using the old font of "The Beatles" from Ringo's drum head in the early 60's as their default logo.