Was it autism?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
Was it autism?
he's right. savages taking such benign criticism so seriously is the actual autism here
>>66275477
yeah i thought the response was pretty funny and too defensive given that he praised the actual music, but still i think analyzing something as subjective as font and spacing is autistic
>>66275524
It is a stupid fucking design though.
>>66275524
>analyzing something as subjective as font and spacing is autistic
it really is not that subjective. the leading there looks really atrocious
>>66275659
>not that subjective
What someone thinks about spacing is demonstrably subjective. What the fuck is happening to the english languange when someone can claim varying degrees of objectivity/subjectivity
>>66275659
it really didnt stand out to be as that bad.
>>66275701
typography is not music, there are some tenets you must abide to, do's and don'ts. that leading is objectively poor
>>66275394
hahahaha the madman steven
>>66275394
What is Savages? Anyone have a link?
>>66275659
it's INHERENTLY subjective
tell me what the universal standards for good font and spacing?
pro tip: you fucking cant because it's subjective
>>66275759
There's no such thing as objectivity in typography or any other forms of art or expression. What you mean to say it's unconventional or untraditional or counterintuitive; all of which are criticisms of a subjective form of expression or presentation of art.
>>66275659
>>66275605
hi sufjan. stalker was ok (:
>>66275790
>>66275802
what's your background in design?
>tell me what the universal standards for good font and spacing?
legibility, readability and beauty. you literally learn this in your first week of design studies
see pic related. from a solely typographical standpoint, the top example is objectively superior to the bottom one because readability is compromised. this is based on verifiable facts about human vision. if readability isn't what you're aiming for then you're not talking typography and delving into subjectivity.
>>66275906
>legibility, readability
it is legible
>beauty
what are the universal standards for beauty again?
literally proving my point
>>66275953
better leading would have improved it. again, what's your background in design? or are you fostering this debate because you just googled "relativism" a few months ago and now feel apt to discard whole schools of knowledge as futile?
>>66275995
>>66275953
now kiss
>>66275995
if someone has a background in music or any form of art does that mean whatever they dislike is objectively bad?
there can be general rules of thumb, but they arent objective.
>are you fostering this debate because you just googled "relativism" a few months ago and now feel apt to discard whole schools of knowledge as futile
more of a personal attack than an argument. obviously you have a lot invested in typography. im not trying to "disregard schools of knowledge," but it's pretty stupid to to say that a set of standards are absolute just because some people who are experienced in an art field agree on them. that's just an appeal to authority. there have been plenty of renowned artist who've disregarded traditional standards. how do you art/musical movements start?
>>66276158
typography is more of a trade than an art, it's easier to subscribe it to objective standards. other artforms are more dependant on value judgements while typography HAS to remain legible and readable. with this in mind, it's easy to conclude that poor leading = poor typography
>>66275524
>i think analyzing something as subjective as font and spacing is autistic
So analyzing something is autistic when it's "too subjective"? I guess analyzing music, or any artistic medium for that matter, is autistic too.
>>66276307
it was a joke because most people dont analyze typography, and to the casual observer such as myself, it seems very nerdy to give an analysis of font and spacing.
i think you're taking it too seriously because it's your field.
>>66275802
of course there is.
and the cover is fine
fucker needs to silence himself s m h
>>66276481
t. guy who designed the cover
>>66276481
tho they are valid points...
>>66276381
>it was a joke ecause most people dont analyze typography, and to the casual observer such as myself, it seems very nerdy to give an analysis of font and spacing
Is this damage control? There was literally nothing in your post to lead me to believe that this was your point and you were being hyperbolic or "joking".
>i think
No, you've made it very clear that you don't think. I don't fucking work in typography.
sufjan was right and the savages singer is just a pressed cunt who cant accept it. also she bashed sufjan's albums artworks which are objectively good and tasteful
what we should really be talking about is how bad savages' music is
>>66276616
im sorry i called an in-depth analysis of typography autistic (that was the joke). i didnt know there was an active field for reviewing album cover font and spacing like there is for music/film/literature.
>No, you've made it very clear that you don't think. I don't fucking work in typography.
again, you seem to be taking this whole thing a bit too seriously.
>>66276637
>>66276594
well, not great points
maybe somewhat un english in the tradition of peter saville
but clearly everything Srfjammer bitches about is why the design was picked
they licked how the SY came together
the didnt wan t to cram it in one line
they didnt want it the visual equal of the band name (italic + narrow)
the issue with design is not that its 'lol subjective kek"
its that it can respond to any demand or direction
sjammers just cant see the direction here
>>66276616
>this mad because someone insulted a review of typography
Found the typography reviewer
Design is very important in marketing music, so no.
>>66276787
it was funny because he started naming the fonts and their groupings
>>66276764
i don't think that's italic senpai, it's oblique
>>66276813
Why is that funny?
>>66275394
The line break's the only real problem, maybe. Maybe the disigner could have done something else with the title to make the cramped spacing look more purposeful. I think the narrow font and italics look good. Makes it modern, it would look pretty boring and old if it was all regular helvetica font.
>>66276748
I don't care about you calling the review autistic. I never even directly mentioned the review. You were outright implying that it's autistic to criticize something that's too subjective. That's what I didn't understand and that a problem with, you passive-aggressive dumbshit.
>>66276862
The typeface is literally the only thing modern about Savages.
>>66276822
there are only so many hairs i will split before i shoot you
take it up with surfjammer
>>66276888
this deserves the quads, but i still like their music
>>66276873
>dumbshit.
i have an iq of 139
>>66276922
idiots and autists are still rational bb
>>66276862
and anyway the whole thing is left justified
of course you break the line to go with the theme
>>66276992
BT^FO
>>66276873
>You were outright implying that it's autistic to criticize something that's too subjective
it is too subjective. reviews of art are always worthless. the only thing helpful is an aggregate score since you can get an idea of how people generally feel and thus know if you will probably like it. but a specific person rambling about weight loss being the worst thing that can happen to an iconic font is stupid since some people aren't necessarily bothered by it. he criticizes the cover as if he's the ultimate authority on typography, and it's a worthless review since no one is going to base their decision whether or not to listen to the album on its typography.
>>66277241
when i say reviews of art, i mean in-depth reviews.
>>66275394
Who the FRAGGLE designed this? xD
Sufjan was very obviously joking.
I can't tell if the Savages person was too. If not then they is a bitch.
>>66277241
>reviews of art are always worthless
to expand on this: film and literary criticism can be of substance because both mediums have a cerebral element. a reviewer can introduce you to themes or motifs you never noticed. same can be said for some paintings or maybe music lyrics. but instrumentals are purely auditory and typography purely visual. there is nothing to think about or consider when you look at font or hear a melody. you either like it or you dont, and nothing that dave from pitchfork or sufjan stevens have to say will change that.
>>66275394
This is something that other musicians should not do
