[78-L] "Selling Sounds" reviewed

[Bill McClung]

I'm kinda sorry I got involved in this discussion.

First, I'm not a machine guy.  I'm in this for the records.  The machines
sure are purty but I doubt if I would know a Crapophone if it crapophoned
on my shoe.

Second, what I meant was that they probably couldn't use any form of the
Nipper image without permission.  

Third, the author probably did see the cover and I'm guessing he's not a
machine guy either.  The book itself got a good review.  I've always
thought it was the music that counted and that it was a plus if the  jacket
was good too.

Fourth, I don't work for Harvard Univ Press.  I get a shot at helping fix
covers with most of the 40 publishers I do work with and I've fixed many a
cover over the years.  If I had seen this one I hope I would have asked
them to take another look at the illustration.  

Fifth, the industry I've worked in for the past 35 years is rapidly
changing.  Yes, there are still independent bookstores out there and I call
on and sell books to more than a hundred of them.  

And sixth, I'm glad Nipper isn't dead, just knocked on his ass.  


> [Original Message]
> From: Michael Biel <mbiel at mbiel.com>
> To: 78-L Mail List <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
> Date: 5/13/2009 4:24:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [78-L] "Selling Sounds" reviewed
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Bill McClung" <bmcclung at ix.netcom.com>
>
>
>
> >I called a friend in the Harvard Univ Press sales department and should
> > have an answer for you in a bit as to the construction of the cover
image.
> >
> > I'm in my 35th year in the book publishing game and to my eye it's an
> > illustration (probably photoshopped) instead of a straight ahead
> > photograph. I should have an answer by tomorrow from the design
> > department.
>
> > I'm betting the machine was pieced together and did not come
> > in a single piece.
>
> You apparently have not seen Crapophones.  This is exactly what one of
> them looks like.  I think that the entire machine, in one piece, was
> photoshopped in especially considering there is a reflection on the
> table of the dog but not of the machine.  But it was a completely whole
> machine. Whether it is an "illustration" or a "photograph" is semantics.
>  It might be an "enhanced photograph".   
>
> > I'm assuming they didn't want to pay to use an RCA image
>
> RCA does not hold design patents on pictures of 100 year old machines. 
> You see photos of old machines all the time.
>
> > so the designer found a table top machine with a big horn or added
> > a big horn just to enhance things.
>
> That horn was added in India in a crude fashion that is the hallmark of
> Crapophones.  As for the box, there is no real machine that had a box
> quite like that.  The back brace is consistant only with Crapophones. 
> Notice that it is too flimsy to hold the entire weight of the arm and
> horn because you can see the reproducer is leaning to the left.  The
> reproducer on the arm is consistant with what was made in later years
> for suitcase portables.  
>
>
> > Book graphics, like album graphics, are tough to get right. 
>
> All that had to be done is have someone (perhaps the author) be
> consulted to tell them that the machine was fake, and lead them to a
> collector or antique store with a real machine they could photograph. 
> They are in BOSTON, for Pete's sake.  There must be hundreds of real
> legit machines within ten miles of their Cambridge office.  No, this was
> a case of ignorance.  A whole committee of people at Harvard University
> Press showed their ignorance on this one.  I know that you can't expect
> everyone to be an expert on everything, but this is HARVARD F_ _ KING
> UNIVERSITY.  
>
>
> > You hope you
> > get the customer's attention with a glance that turns into a look which
> > turns into picking the book up which turns into a reading of the
> > jacket/flap copy which turns into a sale.
>
> There are still bookstores?????????  We look on-line and read the
> reviews.
>
> > Who knows why that machine was used. 
>
> I happened to have looked thru Gramophone graphics on the web last week
> to find images that we might use for the packaging of Leah's documentary
> (we ended up making our own graphics) and there were oodles of
> Crapophones in the clip-art sites because of the golly gee whiz factor
> that catches the eye of photographers and interior decorators.  That
> shiny brass horn gets 'em every time. That's why it was used.  Out of
> ignorance, I might add. 
>
> > I got the joke so it worked on me, even knowing that the machine (I
> > can't call it a record player) was improper. My friend said that
> > the dog has been knocked off its feet by the revolution in the
> > music industry which is the way I saw it. At least that was what
> > they were trying to convey.
>
> My initial reaction was that the dog had been KILLED by the revolution
> in the music industry, which is a more appropriate description of what
> the music industry has done than just knocking it off its feet.  We have
> seen the ELIMINATION of whole genres of music, not just the displacement
> of them.  What poor ole' Nipper represents has been killed, not just
> sorta surprised.
>
> Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
> From: "Taylor Bowie" <bowiebks at isomedia.com>
>
>
> Thanks for posting your friend's message, Bill...it's an excellent look
> at 
> the problems of marketing and the frequent disconnect between writer, 
> editor, design staff and publisher.
>
> I liked the joke as well...poor old Nipper knocked off his feet by the
> many 
> changes in the recording business.
>
> Taylor B
> >
> >> [Original Message]
> >> From: Michael Biel <mbiel at mbiel.com>
>
> >>
> >> From: "Bill McClung" <bmcclung at ix.netcom.com>
> >> > And I'm thinking that cover was drawn and not photographed.
> >>
> >>
> >
http://www.amazon.com/Selling-Sounds-Commercial-Revolution-American/dp/image
> > s/067403337X
> >>
> >> This enlargement shows pretty clearly that this is a photograph.
> >> Although it might have photoshopped the dog into the picture, if it was
> >> a painting why would they have used an unmodified Crapophone when even
> >> if the artist had used a Crapophone as a model he could have modified
> >> that horn joint so it would look like a legit machine. If it was a
> >> painting and it was left looking like a Crapophone, that is WORSE than
> >> using a photograph! Plus the reproducer is on the wrong side of the
> >> turntable. This is from HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS. I expect higher
> >> academic standards from a university press, especially from Harvard.
> >>
> >> > I thought it was a pretty effective visual joke.
> >>
> >> OK, what is your interpretation of the cover? What does the visual joke
> >> mean? Is the dog dead, or is it rolling in ecstasy? There seem to be
> >> two opinions in the matter.
> >>
> >> Mike Biel mbiel at mbiel.com
> >>
> >>
> >> lherault at bu.edu writes:
> >> > > > > It looks like the dog died too. Ron L
> >>
> >> From: Dnjchi at aol.com
> >> > > > What killed the dog? dc
> >>
> >> Ron L wrote:
> >> > > > He ate burned horseflesh, but other than that, there is no news.
> > Ron L
> >>
> >> From: David Lennick <dlennick at sympatico.ca>
> >> > > The dog COULD be rolling in glee while the crapophone spins
> >> > > "What d'ye Mean You Lost Your Dog" or "The Whistler And His Dog"
> >> > > or "I Want A Hot Dog For My Roll". dl
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l