Some help with a logo

electricalyce

electricalyce

Member
I can't decide on which of these is the best, from a visual/aesthetic perspective, which is better?

tkx0
 
out of the two of them i prefer the bottom one personally :)
 
Literally just the coloured bars are the only difference ?

What does it say by the way ? Gloomy?
 
Ya I think it needs to be more readable...I'd have no idea what this was if I saw it on something...I still don't know whati t says...gloomy sounds like the best guess.

I like the bottom one better tho...just make it more readable.
 
Is it Spot the Difference? Both look identical, therefore any visual advantage is marginal and has distinction or separation apart from individual subjectiveness - so therefore is no rationalisation to the question.

From an aesthetic point of view, without sounding cruel, I have no idea what it says without buying a code book to decipher the design. Therefore as a piece of intrinsic communication it fails. Design before Communication ( BB Book of life - posted countless times) or in a nutshell... self indulgent twaddle. sorry:down:

Love your Avatar BTW. good work
 
ding ding round two...

pretty much agree though - I had no idea what it said and the difference minimal.
 
yea i can't read that at all. top bars look better.
if the 'letters' were thicker and more spaced out then the bottom one would look better.

What does it actually say?
 
Hi Alyce,

From a purely aesthetic point of view I think it looks great, and I like the general style and feel that you're going for. But I have to agree with Berry, it fails horribly as a piece of communication which is essentially what a logo is. And I would suggest that you make it a lot more readable. I can see 'Gloo' but the rest is impossible for me to decipher.

Thanks,
Soren
 
Berry said:
Is it Spot the Difference? Both look identical, therefore any visual advantage is marginal and has distinction or separation apart from individual subjectiveness - so therefore is no rationalisation to the question.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Devil is in the details, so if visual advantage is marginal, that's okey ;)

From an aesthetic point of view, without sounding cruel, I have no idea what it says without buying a code book to decipher the design. Therefore as a piece of intrinsic communication it fails.
Click to expand...

I think that's a contradiction, from a purely aesthetic point of view, it doesn't matter if you get what it says or not, if it fails as a piece of communicational design is one thing, and I'd love to take critic on that, but don't come and say that this critic is based on a aesthetic point of view. Unless you are one of the anti-fine-art people where "nothing without function can be truly beautiful" etc.

Thanks for the feedback on the readability everyone, I am aware that it's hard to read what it says (it1s gloomy, if you look hard enough you'll see the M-form). I am debating myself if I should try and make the M more readable (M's sucks when it comes to geometry by the way, heh), or leave it this way. It's a band-logo which partly "allows" the readability rule to be broken but I'm unshure.

But anyway, it was perhaps stupid not to post more varied... variations of the logo sooner in the process, instead of asking about a small detail. If anyone have any opinions on the detailing in question, please voice your opinion. A thread on artistic design vs. structural more functional design would be interesting too! :up: But it should probably be in a thread in itself so it's easier to stay on topic.
 
Not that it matters too much, by what sort of music genre would Gloomy by night fall into? Just out of interest to see if the style of the mark fits in with conventions of the genre.
 
Kind of electro-nurave-electroclash-pop-ish?

The concept of the lines over the O's is that it will reflect lines over the faces of the "band-members", which will be cartoons (cartoon pop band, as known by Gorillaz etc).

d69a


(sorry for the crap picture, try to ignore the splatter-thing)
 
To give more details...

This is an assigment for school we are working on (me and alyce). So this is not a real logo that is gonna be used. Not that that matters, of course, same rules apply. It's for a band. So beause of that, "most" general rules of logomaking falls away... It's not all about readability (can anyone here decipher this?), it's about capturing the music and the band in a logo, giving a feel of what kind of music you can expect.

alyce's fault for not pointing out that what we wanted feedback, was just wich version of the colored stripes looked the best, since that was what we were stuck on. We went for vs.1 btw.
 
Michae said:
It's not all about readability (can anyone here decipher this?),
Click to expand...

Dark Throne...... (give me my bag of Skittles and a Bottle of Becks.;))

Glad your sorted. a bit of info at the beginning wouldn't have led to so much confusion. - Slap yourself with a wet Herring!
 
the difference between the 2 is so minute, it is barely noticeable, so i think its a case of flipping a coin.

but I would agree that the readability is probably a more important issue, maybe like this?

gloomyshow.jpg
 
Berry said:
Dark Throne...... (give me my bag of Skittles and a Bottle of Becks.;))

Glad your sorted. a bit of info at the beginning wouldn't have led to so much confusion. - Slap yourself with a wet Herring!
Click to expand...

Michae already did :up:
 
Michae said:
mrp2049 sorry but oh god no, the whole art deco-thing we were going for was ruined now :p :lol:
Click to expand...

I'm sorry :( next time i'll spend more time over it. I wont spend 30 seconds chopping it up :(

in all seriousness, its a nice logo, i was just thinking quickly about the legabilty.

I didnt realise there was such a deep deco style point being made;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top