The Rolling Stone logo was not derived from a font. It was drawn by lettering artist and type designer Jim Parkinson. You can see his work at his website, including the RS logo.

Incidentally, if they were trying to invoke the spirit of the sixties by aping the Rolling Stone logo, they're a bit off the mark chronologically. RS began using that particular logo in 1980. Playing off the original logo by Rick Griffin would have been more apt (though perhaps less recognizable).

Also, this is not the first time the Rolling Stone logo has been appropriated. Some other examples are the recent movie School of Rock and the 1985 movie Perfect (although, I think RS may have been an accomplice in this last one). I know there have been others.

I think it wouldn't have been too close to complain... except for that connection between "H" and "p"!

hhp

This does bring up the constant debate between copying and referencing (remember Greiman's swatch ad vs Herbert Matter's Swissair? At least her social context and concept were well grounded.) I think that the copyrights for these things are pretty vague anywhere you go, though I myself couldn't say exactly. It seems like ever other logotype, lettermark, or logo is the same as the next these days. Can anyone here speak to the legal issues this image might face if it originated in the United States?

This shameless (and as you said, craftless) rip off is only made worse by the obligatory peace sign, the only intelligible reference to the social movements of the sixties. I guess it just goes to show that our fascination with retro style has usurped our understanding of the past.

Ok back to work.

Aaron

I'm more curious about the target market of this "hippie" business. If it is for 20-somethings (and non-historians) perhaps it is better to use the Parkinson design as opposed to the original. They might associate Rollingstone with that time period, but the Rollingstone of today, and wouldn't be able to associate "hippies" with the original artwork.

BTW John Travolta played a writer for Rollingstone in Perfect and that is the tie-in. Sheesh I cannot believe I can remember that.

The "designer" of the logo is a lazy, ignorant rip-off artist. Or maybe the client is to blame.

The easy route for designers working on historical projects is to use the shorthand symbols that have now come to be associated (often anachronistically) with a particular era, rather than do the necessary research, immerse oneself in the era, and channel something more authentic.

The issue is also one of cultural identity: surely the hippy movement in Chile had some local flavour. Surely Chile had its own local counter culture/rock publications which should be referenced.

Think globally, act locally!

But whatever you do, please stop voting.

hhp

I wasn't disagreeing with any of you. I was simply wondering aloud why the designer did it?

Of course it would be better for them to do research. But then, where do you draw the line? Is it alright then, that April Greiman "appropriately" appropriated the design of Herbert Matter?

It strikes me strangest, as Nick pointed out, that the design says nothing of Chile.

Rolling Stone was set letterpress on Monotypes, they briefly owned Mackenzie-Harris, San Francisco. M & H owned the Lanston Type Library.
http://lanstontype.com/SanFranTruck.html

I'm more curious about the target market of this "hippie" business. If it is for 20-somethings (and non-historians) perhaps it is better to use the Parkinson design as opposed to the original. They might associate Rollingstone with that time period, but the Rollingstone of today, and wouldn't be able to associate "hippies" with the original artwork.

Maybe. But, while Parkinson's logo (and possibly the lame imitation of it) says "Rolling Stone," it doesn't really say "hippie." On the other hand, Griffin's logo (like just about everything else he did) definitely says "hippie," but possibly not "Rolling Stone" (an interpretation which seems to be unnecessary anyway).

It doesn't say "hippie" me either. But, to people that don't truly understand history and culture (this one in particular), visual history especially, I think it would be easy to confuse it. Griffin's logo is not near as eponymous with the so-called rock subculture as is that of Parkinson.

Types of the counter culture:

Windsor Bold, used for the title of The Last Whole Earth Catalog.

Cooper Black, in back-to-the-land colour scheme of brown on beige.

Those faces have a soft and hand-made look, gentle, peaceful, retro in an anti-modern-civilisation kind of way.

Anything set with IBM Selectric type and photocopied.

In comparison, the Pump look used for Dharma and Greg, and That 70s Show, is a little later, Velvet Goldmine, not hippy but glam.

The intricate 3-d of Parkinson's RS logo always struck me as having a brash slickness like early rock'n'roll, giving a pedigree and a sense of historical import to the publication. The underlying letterforms are very Americana, a lot of Swashed-out Bookman in there, and that was a '60s retro thing (as in classic Kayser ads).

So Nick why is Bookman Swash Italic become so popular, I hated it when I was getting into the industry and I don't like it now, but its so popular? I agree about the typefaces being soft and the word I'd use is organic. Alot of hand lettering that kind of oosed from one character into another. Free Love, Bro

I can

Yes, it's sloppy, both in concept and execution, but it's parody. Parody is fair. It shouldn't be treated like a crime wave.

I agree with Kevin Pease, that perhaps the person who did the Hippie logo was paying tribute to RS rather than resorting to flat-out plagarism.

I am not defending this paractice, because I think a person is on dangerous ground borrowing anything from an existing piece of work. Also it is little sad to see anyone work in a vein where they cannot just close their eyes to what's out there, and just get out the pencils. There is so much plain joy in drawing without reference or compromise. And what a fun project "Hippie" could be!

Jim Rimmer

> I can

Here's the evolution of the RS logo:




1967 Rick Griffin original. According to RS publisher Wenner, this was a sketch snatched from Griffin and he was never given the opportunity to do the finished art.




1974. Cleaned up a bit some time in the early 70s.




1975. Redrawn (by Parkinson?). Note the corrected stem weighting on the N.




1977. Redesign, by Parkinson.




1981. Slight redesign, by Parkinson, to restore some of the florid quality of the earlier logos. This one stuck and has not been changed since.


(Source: Rolling Stone: The Complete Covers, 1998)</font>

>why is Bookman Swash Italic become so popular...?

For the same reason as Avant Garde: it gave art directors lots of opportunity to add value to their work by exercising their typographic discrimination by spec'ing a specific set of alternate characters to create a custom wordmark or headline. And that was more fun and fulfilling than just getting it set plain. Today, types like Perla and Dalliance offer the same opportunity.

>Yes, it's sloppy, both in concept and execution, but it's parody.

Sorry Kevin, I must disagree with you. The knock-off's execution is pretty slick. Maybe some of the curves could be a bit smoother, but the "dimensionalization" is a quite accurate copy, as are many of the letter forms.

Please don't dignify such wholesale theft as "parody" -- real parody is either mocking, or a travesty. This rip-off is much too close to the original to be either: it adds nothing.

And that's when the purpose of parody is art, which is perhaps justifiable. But this is for a commercial product that capitalizes on the status of a registered trademark. That's outright larceny.

That 1975 version is excellent. The more time I spend looking at it the better it seems and the more nice details I notice. Stylistically, it is dated, but as a piece of work it is incredibly good. I especially like the way the ball terminals evoke musical notes and rests.

Yes, I'll parrot John's comment. Jim Parkinson has more ability to work with letters than most.

...the ball terminals evoke...

I was thinking more of psychedelia and smoke and hookahs...but I can see the music now. ;^)

I like them all for different reasons.

Some irrelevant notes on the illustrations:

The photo behind the 1974 logo is of Nixon's forehead.

The photo behind the 1981 logo is Annie Leibovitz' famous photo of John Lennon and Yoko Ono that appeared not long after Lennon was shot.

Wow. Thanks Mark. Jim, can we coax you to elaborate?

I was thinking more of psychedelia and smoke and hookahs...

I didn't think they had things like that in Utah

I just noticed my link to the School of Rock movie site was typed in wrong. It should be http://www.schoolofrockmovie.com/. Sorry.

There have been some intelligent and fair posts about the "Hippie" logo, and some that are perhaps a little harsh. From the representation that shows up on my screen, I don't see the result as craftless or sloppy; simply a bit lacking in gestalt. The H seems to be arguing with itself, and the two p's dont carry the same entry stroke as the i. Why was the serif dropped on the top of the right stem on the H? At first glance the piece doesn't look all that bad. However, why bother with at best a tribute to RS, or at worst, a weak immitation of the master, Jim Parkinson.

Even though I am much wrapped up in my own irrelevant world of lead and ink, and don't chase graphic design work much these days, "Hippie" is something I would have loved to take a whack at. Some people are incureable.

Some years back I had a studio space in Vancouver's Gastown area (one of those nice old 1890's flat-iron buildings. In those days (late sixties) every lettering artist in town was trying to ape what was coming out of San Francisco, and I was one of them. There was a lot of work of that nature, and of course there was a lot of poster work as well. Reminiscing is bad for a person!

Plagarism depends on what the borrower's motives are. If one wishes to quietly lift something and pass it off as their own; that stinks. It's understandable that a piece of work so knocks a person out that they wished that they had done it. I have always felt that way about Bix Beiderbecke's (someone for you to research if you are curious enough) musical ideas. For years and years, I tried to play his solos note for note, but I never sounded like anything other than myself, trying to play Bix's stuff.
What made Bix great is the same thing that makes Jim Parkinson great; some inner thing that is just there, and unexplainable. In short, natural talent. That's what makes a master.

What I'm saying is, what I have always told my typography students: look at it, learn from it, and then go and have some fun with your OWN ideas. Good or bad, they are your own.

This has gotten as long as War and Peace. Sorry.

Jim Rimmer

I dislike hearing abuse of the word "parody" as much as anyone, Nick, but I still say this is parody and fair use. The only reason they would ever choose to make it look like that is the expectation that anyone must immediately see that it is meant to look like the Rolling Stone masthead. The viewer is supposed to say, ah, hippies, Woodstock, Rolling Stone, I get it, ha ha.

Whether it is commercial or not does not matter, because they only imitated the style to make their reference; they're not stealing the masthead itself and calling their show the Rolling Stone Show.

"Must an infringer be a competitor?
No. The focus of trademark infringement analysis is on the confusion of actual or potential customers. Accordingly, an infringer's products or services need only be sufficiently related to the trademark owner's products or services so that it is likely that both are promoted to and/or used by common customers."
-- International Trademark Association

So, the inherent legal problem with close parody is that the rip-off looks like it is a product of, or endorsed by, the owner of the trademark.

Hi. I've been enjoyining reading the discussion about the Hippie logo. I'm tempted to comment on the evolution of the RS logo but it's a loooooong story. Short version. Original logo was just a sketch by Rick Griffin. I think he made $75. The logo was later refined by John Pistelli (Pistelli Roman). When I first started sketching on the logo, I ran right off the road and into a ditch. My drawings were too hippy-dippy...practically unreadable. I was trying to honor the work of Griffin, but got lost somewhere. I turned my attention to another RS project. A type family. Roger Black wanted the typefaces to be based on ATF Jenson...or the Golden Types. I was, at that time, very uneducated about type and my work was still heavily influenced by Griffin. The result was a series of typefaces I have described as Nicholas Jenson on acid. Some years later, The Font Bureau invited me to make changes I always wanted to make...and add a few faces. Those types are at the FB, now known as Parkinson. Anyhow, after the type was taking shape, Roger suggested I try making the logo from those designs. The result was my first RS logo. The 10th Anniversary version. A few years later, Jann Wenner asked me to try and bring back some of the feel of the original logo. I've heard that Mick Jagger made some comment to Jann that the 10th Anniversary logo appeared to have "lost its balls." The result was the logo they use today. The intricated inline, outline arrangement was inspire by the Griffin logo but formalized, thanks to some ornate wood type samples and some herb. Regarding the Hippie logo...there have been dozens of knockoffs. I just wish they expanded on an idea..pushed it a bit further. Any questions?

Hello Jim. Who was responsible for the 1975 version shown above?

Earlier in this thread, Mark posted all five RS logos. The top one is the original. The second is a slightly refined version of the original. I don't know if it was done "in house" (as ther were many very capable artists on staff), or by Rick Griffin.
The third is the Pistelli version. The fourth, my version based on the typefaces, and the bottom one my second version.

jim

"Turn on, tune in and drop out."

The hippie label doe not say that. It is establishment through and through. Not only that but it says Generation X.

The 1967 version would be the correct model to base it on. In order to fully appreciate the finesse of the original, you would have to spray your pet roaches with fluorescent paint, eat lysergic acid, plug in your black lights, sit back and groove to the fluorescant roach brigade marching to Bob Dylan the leader of the band. The last version say something else, such as, "the cops are coming."

Don't ask how I know that?
http://lanstontype.com/GiampaIntroduction.html

Actually, the last version is supposed to say, "We've moved from San Francisco to Fifth Avenue in New York and we're going to go mainstream and make a ton of money, but, in the logo, there should be at least a slight nod to our roots." Whew.

old Brazilian editions of RS (from 1972, it only lasted 36 issues)

E o pior

Jim, great stuff!
And yes, a question: the "Jenson on acid" stuff, is there any relation to the Morris derivatives that ATF made around the turn of the century?

hhp

Hrant, the "Jenson on acid" style fonts I drew for RS started from ATF Jenson specimens. At that time, I didn't have any idea what Roger was talking about. No clue. A typographic moron. If I knew what I was doing, the results would have been quite different. I recently revisited the ATF Jenson idea and wound up with a small family called Benicia. Here, on my site. http://www.typedesign.com/fonts/benmed.html

Wait, you'd already explained that ATF connection! Sometimes I'm a really sloppy reader.

BTW, I just noticed the wonderful "g" in the Parkinson font - groooovy, maaan! (Sorry...)

hhp

The 1977 version is hideous!

Talking of parody (and 'substances', come to that), isn't that 1977 version meant to remind you of the Rizla papers logo?

There has been one minor change to the RS logo since '81 -- they've dropped the striations in the drop shadow, now it's always shown as solid black.

Jimenez

Talking of parody (and 'substances', come to that), isn't that 1977 version meant to remind you of the Rizla papers logo?

What have you been smoking?

hey Jim

a little question... in all the parodies and reminders of the RS logo, have the magazine start a legal process? with anyone? and if not, why they are so upset now...

By the way a parody it's legal, even though i don't like it that literal, but the design firm defends their Hippie logo as a product of one of a thousands typefaces that look similar, and never recognize the RS logo as a reference.

By the way, i am thrilled by your work.

CG

...the design firm defends their Hippie logo as a product of one of a thousands typefaces that look similar, ...

Dozens--maybe. But thousands? That's ridiculous.

...and never recognize the RS logo as a reference.

That is simply impossible.

It seems to me they are relying to an almost absurd degree on the public's ignorance about type as their defense. Anyone with even the most rudimentary level of visual awareness could see the connection.

I'm not saying that what they did was necessarily wrong, but what a stupid argument in its defense.

The Hippie logo is more an imitation than a parody.

>> By the way a parody it's legal.

The word legal is a slippery one,
but essentially, some parody is okay and other
parody infringes on the legal rights of others
and thus, invites civil, but not criminal, consequences.

Trademark infringement typically is not black and white
and what is legal is often never determined

hey Christian

I'm not connected with the magazine in any way that would allow me to know their position on the imitations, except to know that they endorsed the lettering for the movie Perfect.

As for the Hippie logo, I think I would have moved the swash on the H to the top right and made it curl around so the ball at the end of the swash was the dot on the i. I would also have made the top (serif) angle on the i less severe and conformed the tops of the pp to the new tops on the i. Also, straighten crossbar on the H and put serif feet on any vertical stroke of the H that isn't swashed.

Blah, blah, blah....

This is a fascinating thread, as Jim Parkinson's work on Rolling Stone was a typographical beacon for me, working in the UK during the 70s. But it seems to me that the 'Hippie' parody of the RS logo misses the mark, as nobody surely thought of RS as being a hippie magazine? Now if they'd parodied 'Oz', that might be different.

Artwork by Robin Sommers.

I remember when Jim brought his inkings to a class I was taking in Oakland, way back in the 70s. I also remember the first word mark for RS. Jim was an inspiration to me.

About parody.
I guess it depends on who you are. The Swatch rip off done by Paula Scher [pg 448, History of Graphic Design; Meegs 3rd edition] becomes paying homage, according to Messrs. Heller and Meegs. Yet when someone emulates a style or really parodies it can be called rip off.

Fossil, for example, is designing in a style and is not just lifting elements and placing them in a new context. Yet some have said that they are just appropriating.

So when a designer works on a typeface that is based on the original work of a "classic" how would you catagorize that? Like Filosophia or Mrs eaves by Zuzana Licko.


Nick thank you for your insights and the marijuana review, gawd I remember that.

Paul, on the sliding scale of design turpitude, I would say that plundering the distant past isn't half as bad as "diluting" the work of living artists. But it's still not in the same class as original work.

Wow, paul, did I say Greiman? Paula Scher goes out of her way for the profession and for students and how do I repay her? Apologies to her and to everyone misled by me. I guess I was too lazy to get out my copy of the Meggs book and do the right thing.

The argument of parody vs thievery could easily seem to be one of status. "Real" designers "pay homage" while "fake" designers "rip off." I don't believe in this mantra. I think that it is truly about concept and knowledge. Zuzana sees Baskerville as an opportunity for typographic improvement (and does it all justice), whereas Microsoft sees Helvetica as too expensive and comes up with Arial. Hippie steals a style, totally ignorant to the history and real connotations.

I guess it gets stickiest with CSA and Duffy with their retro thing. I suppose its never been a crime to revive or reference style, but it certainly doesn't further design and culture.

Anyway, its a classic argument, one that has been fought out by the best of us to no end.

Aaron

But at least MS takes the power of type seriously - Apple doesn't, which is of course highly ironic, since it's the "designer's computer". But wait, most designers don't get fonts either, so maybe that makes perfect sense after all! :-/

hhp

The problem with faces like Myriad and Arial (and it's particularly obvious with sans faces) is that they leave a huge part of their "inspiration" unaltered, and this is what makes them unworthy to be given a name of their own, and the distinction of being an original design.

When a type designer has a genuine design idea, one that applies thoughout the character set, then you get a legitimate piece of work.

But like all ethical issues, it's always shades of grey, and applying a "style filter" to a classic, as in Filosofia, still doesn't give it the merit of one of Licko's truly original faces. That may be one reason she has added "gimmicks" to Filsofia (the unicase) and Mrs Eaves (the crazy ligs, the 2 sets of SC). I'd like to see her do a traditional serifed face from scratch. That would be really special, as she's aced every other genre including inventing a few of her own.

But there is no real text face design without proper spacing.

> I'd like to see her do a traditional serifed face from scratch.

Really? Aren't there too many people doing that already? She should use her inventiveness, just channel it better. Modula for example is a superb design, but with a hamartia: the overly literal lc "g" that makes the font not a text face. She should make a Modula-2 (huh, like the programming language!) with that (and the spacing) fixed.

Or maybe I'm getting your "traditional" wrong. But Filosofia and Mrs Eaves are highly traditional in my mind - although the former is still a dysfunctional Didone, and the latter requires InDesign's optical spacing to really carry text (and only at larger sizes).

hhp

Everyone,
On the second hand, our discussion is about the look of Hippie and how it "pays hommage" to Jim Parkinson's word mark for Rolling Stone. [tongue firmly in cheek here]

Hippie is poor lettering, and not well balanced.

What we need to define here is "paying hommage" or diluting or "ripping off".

In my humble opinion, using a style as inspiration is paying hommage. But when we talk about taking or appropriating images from the past and reusing them in a different context or using them to lend validity or historicisim for a product should that be called "rip off"?

Licko said she was paying hommage with her "classics" inspite of the gimmicks by the dutch guys (was it Erik or Just? who did the ligature programming). Scher said nothing at the time (it was done ex-post facto).

So maybe we can define these differences as whether the designer actually says that they are paying hommage or state where they get their inspiration; many type designers are going back in time to get inspiration, or to do revivalist work.

I realize that there is no "answer" to this, but like language we can come up with consensus.

Maybe that is the direction we could take on this.
PS.

We're taking the opportunity at TypeCon2004 this July to explore the work of some of the artists who helped shape the San Francisco aesthetic of the 60s-70s. Jim Parkinson will give a presentation which will include a look at his early work - Jim's talks are always a lot of fun. Roger Black is going to speak... Carl Rohrs, a talented NoCal calligrapher, will give a presentation about Rick Griffin. Carl's talk will showcase the work Rick did for RS, and also his other contributions to the scene - Haight Ashbury posters for the Grateful Dead, his work with Surfer mag, etc. It's going to be a treat to see what these guys were up to back in the day, as well as the great work they're doing now.

I recall seeing the 1974 version at Rick Griffin’s house in the late ’70s. I didn’t realize that it was a cleaned up version of the 1967 original. Thanks to Mark for the evolutionary samples.

Hippy is almost perfectly goofy. Nothing wrong with that.

Chile had a very rich counter-culture which survived the US-backed dictatorship, but which isn’t proving to be sufficiently resilient to survive World Bank and International Monetary Fund policies. Perhaps Hippy reflects that reality rather well.