Hiphop/electronica act [logotype won't work]

mads's picture

EDIT: Had some trouble uploading the pictures in this post; they're in the follow-up.

Hello people.

I'm doing a logotype for a group called Melk.
I started out with this (very loosely outlined - no consistency whatsoever)

Then decided it was a bit too 'sharp', so I reworked it, trying to get a Cooper / Sauna Black -quality to it:

..then decided it was, after all, a bit too loose.

However, I did like the slanted look of the previous sketch, so I did this:

Something doesn't look right to me. It is the M I think. Maybe partly the E as well (btw: is it legible?).

Please comment...


mads's picture

trying once again:

step one:

step two:

where I am now:

aaron_carambula's picture

I think your sketch is sweet! Kerning aside, i think it's got a more accurate baseline and a more descernable form for the 'e,' a better series of terminals, and, well, I dig the curves.

Not knowing who this hiphop/electronica folks are, I can't tell you whether or not the fluid is better for them, but I know visually I find the sketch more interesting, and more cohesive. The strokes on the 'm,' for instance, are a lot more similar to the rest of the letters, where as the digitized versions don't quite match.

I think the angle of the 'm' strokes aren't supported by the angle of the 'e,' which appears to be violently attacking the m. maybe if the left corner of the e was not a corner this would be different.

Anyway, rock on, this is interesting stuff!


EDIT: I just noticed that in your hand drawn sketch, the 'lk" ascenders are not really lined up, which I think is a great detail and could help liven up your digital versions!

mads's picture

Hi Aaron,

Thanks for the comments! You make some interesting points.. I'll try to work at it.

To some degree I also think the sketch is best.. still; I think it gets too soft for them. Guess I'll have to try to balance the soft / hard details better..


ghorrian's picture

I think the "where I am now:", nr 1. version is more legible. at nr. 2 the e and the k's hmm... righ side is quite alike, which makes them read the same. so in the worst case i could read (if i realy want to :-) ) melle...

so i thought.. I show u what i had in mind,
with a more K like thing... maybe:

cheers Mads, i actualy realy liked ur 1st scatch too :-)

mads's picture

Hi Greg,

Thanks for looking into it. I like your take on the K.. however, I think it's turning to a direction that's not quite right for this.

I've made a new M. It's been a struggle. Is it too different from the others?new M


tsprowl's picture

hey - the e in your sketch...I think you might need the curve in the eye from the sketch onto your comps. in fact if you traced your sketch excatly, smoothed out some curves, I think you got something, well I like it at least, rather then the hard lines.

strangely enough before your last revision I can't quite see the e - seems more like "c" or just some undesernable glyph but when you flipped the m, I see more e-ness, but the direction bothers me - unless you extend the strokes on k to the same degree and lenght for some sort of balance?

just my tidbits.

cjg's picture

I also like the e in your sketch, but the m and k look sort of like Hebrew. You've rectified this largely in the last revision, but I second Tanya's suggestoin regarding the curved eye. Bring back the curved body, as well

mads's picture

Sorry for responding so late; thanks for the comments. The deadline caught me, and this is how it ended:
the end

Wish I had more time for it.


Syndicate content Syndicate content