NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New. All posts have been closed to comments. Please visit underconsideration.com/brandnew for the latest version. If you would like to see this specific post, simply delete _v1 from the URL.
Launched a little over ten years ago as a companion to MuchMusic and now part of the bigger Much[Blank] network of Canadian music channels, MuchMoreMusic changed its name and logo this past March. The new name is just MuchMore, dropping the music, which is weird because “MuchMore” doesn’t mean, well, much without the “music” part. At least that’s what I found while Googling. But that’s not necessarily the driving point of this review. The new logo was apparently redesigned in-house by Vancouver Film School graduate Nicolas Alexander. The old logo was, of course, a mess of Garamondic proportions that lacked any sort of intention or interest. The new one, on the other hand, is striving hard for both intention and interest, but I’m not sure what either is. Maybe it’s explained in how the logo animates — not being in Canada, I can’t see the on-air applications and the animation group, Crush, that did the broadcast work does not have anything on their site — but I don’t get what the missing pieces of the “M”s and the “O” are supposed to be. Loading? More? Much more? What? Why just MMO get the slicing treatment? Nonetheless, it’s an improvement and it looks fun but, for me, not MuchMore positive things to say than that.
Thanks to Kyle Richmond for the tip.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
josh’s comment is:
i can picture the 'o' animated as a rotating clock kinda thing, but apart from that i don't know what they'll do with it.
On Apr.13.2009 at 07:28 AM
Erik at Logo Critiques’s comment is:
The new one is more pleasing to look at and more modern. However, I don't really get the chopped letters either. Are we supposed to think there is "Much More" than meets the eye? or "much more" than we can see. I dunno...
On Apr.13.2009 at 07:59 AM
stefano picco’s comment is:
Very nice redesign, I like the typographic style and chosen colors.
It's exiting and animates to read the logotype, the old one was to flutter.
Goog job :)
On Apr.13.2009 at 08:45 AM
Jackie Steele’s comment is:
Looks like perhaps the O is supposed to be a similar glyph to the C above it (though obviously mid-cartwheel). As for the sliced M, ya got me.
On Apr.13.2009 at 09:02 AM
Maya’s comment is:
Would it have been much more work to add the word 'music' in there? There's such mystery with this identity.
I thought there was something I was supposed to get about the missing parts of the M's and O, but I see from everyone's else's comments that I'm not alone.
On Apr.13.2009 at 09:25 AM
David H’s comment is:
I think the letters were cut to look interesting. It would have been much better had the missing parts in the letters had a bigger purpose.
On Apr.13.2009 at 09:43 AM
Ryan Adair’s comment is:
Yeah, I think they were sliced for pure aesthetic value. Nothing else. And, it looks pretty fun. The colors are definitely more musical...
On Apr.13.2009 at 09:47 AM
designscene’s comment is:
'Much more' just became 'much less', or a 'little less'? It communicates the opposite of what it means.
On Apr.13.2009 at 09:57 AM
Dan’s comment is:
I get the glyph repetition between the 'C' and the 'O'. The purpose of the 'M' slice is not immediately apparent to me, but my guess is that, as with the sliced 'O', the incomplete stroke is meant to suggest activity and movement.
As for the name change, I *can* suggest a theory. In Canada, 'Much Music' is known simply as 'Much'(a logo which also needs a redesign). http://www.muchmusic.com/
To drop 'music' from 'much more' just seems like it's an attempt to bring it all in line.
Colors and treatment are nice.
Lucid’s comment is:
Needs much more work
C/C+
On Apr.13.2009 at 10:18 AM
Jordan’s comment is:
If they included some music glyphs in the logo, it would make it much clearer.
On Apr.13.2009 at 10:34 AM
Pace’s comment is:
I think the cut letter hint at their next move. MMO clearly means that they'll be building a music-based competitor to World Of Warcraft this year. Or not.
On Apr.13.2009 at 10:51 AM
M.’s comment is:
The 'O' reflects the 'C', as stated, which is pretty clever (especially in animation). The sliced 'M's look from here to be a reaction to the way the words are diagonally aligned. I get it, but maybe it would have made sense to also slice the ends of each word in a similar way.
The color choices are good. In fact, the slices may exist to give the logo some distinction in 1-color applications (without color or the M slices, just the sliced 'O' sets the logo apart from a straight-up sans wordmark).
On Apr.13.2009 at 11:05 AM
Alex’s comment is:
The sliced "O" is a rotated "C"
On Apr.13.2009 at 11:10 AM
Brendan’s comment is:
I think the altered M's provide a nice diagonal that makes the layout a bit more dynamic. I think the altered O creates a little breathing room in the interior. As slammed as that type is, I'm picturing it getting rather crowded in there with a full O... I don't know if there are better ways to accomplish those feats, but I think the logo works.
On Apr.13.2009 at 11:15 AM
BJN’s comment is:
I agree with designscene about the cognitive dissonance of the "Much More" name vs. the mouse-eaten letters. Gotham again, it looks like this typeface is on the fast track to wearing out its welcome.
On Apr.13.2009 at 11:16 AM
Harper’s comment is:
I'm not sure that a logo has to necessarily mean something tangible. I'm fine with the cut off letters as they are, without any meaning.
I really like the name too. It's a bit like VH1. I don't even know what that means but that doesn't matter.
On Apr.13.2009 at 11:52 AM
Carlo’s comment is:
It seems they also have a brand called "Much More Retro". So perhaps this is an attempt to establish "Much More" as a brand unto itself that can tag along with other modifiers "Music", "Retro", etc. Which may explain the slashed M's keeping the shortened leg of each "M" flat - to allow them to fit/lock more elegantly with another element or word?
On Apr.13.2009 at 11:59 AM
Josh’s comment is:
As much as I dislike the idea that slapping on a glyph would fix it, I think there's something to that idea. Just a small, subtle musical reference could really help the concept.
Unfortunately, I think the designer got a little too caught up in tweaking the typography and lost sight of the big brand picture. Even if it's meant to brand other ventures, the logo's just not adding much to those brands other than a (marginally) recognizable wordmark.
On Apr.13.2009 at 12:19 PM
Vaughn’s comment is:
Maybe it's supposed to be like a visual irony-pun thingy. As in, the name is "Much More", but there is less in the wordmark (ie the cut-off letters). Or maybe a reference to "less is more"? I probably am reading too much into it, but may be where this is coming from?
On Apr.13.2009 at 01:05 PM
JeanC’s comment is:
They dropped "music" because they air lots of non-music program now.
On Apr.13.2009 at 01:23 PM
Skylar’s comment is:
The new logo is nice, but it does not look like a logo that will serve the test of time. It's going to look dated in a few years.
On Apr.13.2009 at 03:22 PM
Josh ’s comment is:
I think we are looking for a gimmick when there may not be one.
The shape of this new M is much more 'musical'. I can picture a conductors baton moving in that motion or the treble/pitch of a song fluctuating in that shape, perhaps? Something to do with an offset beat? Any of those would work.
Regardless, it is fresher, more modern and could have interesting applications in motion. There's much worse out there!
On Apr.13.2009 at 03:31 PM
Joe G.’s comment is:
Why is everyone looking for meaning in the letterforms? There are none.
Flip through a Los/Dos/Tres logo book, almost half the logos in there contain arbitrary letter-form modifications. Sometimes form is purely aesthetic. As is the case with this redesign. I personally don't feel strongly about it either way... it's ok, but as someone else mentioned, it will probably look dated in a couple years.
On Apr.13.2009 at 04:46 PM
N.S.’s comment is:
@ Joe G.--
Maybe the reason this will look dated in a few years is because it's based on nothing but aethetic like you suggest. As a designer you should try to design things which are heavily based on timelessness, and not on trendy aesthetics. Otherwise you will have to re-design over and over, which means you keep hitting the "reset" button on your brand equity (that's a bad thing, in case you didn't know).
So many vocal designers with no design education...ugh. X(
On Apr.13.2009 at 05:14 PM
Mark’s comment is:
Well it's an improvement over the previous 1995-esque squish and stretch logo THAT'S for sure.
I'm just wondering why they went to an unfinished look? I'm just asking.
maybe the O is still loading XD
They should have left the M's unfinished and the other letters finished it would look better that way.
On Apr.13.2009 at 05:57 PM
b.r.o.o.d.y.’s comment is:
I actually like it very much. I just wonder why they eliminated the word music, that was totally unnecessary.
The wordmark may not be much on its own... but this logo easily lends itself to tons of uses in patterns, compositions, and illustrations, just by virtue of being typographic and geometric. The slashed "M"s may not mean much, but they make the mark easy to remember and recognize.
I think they could actually get some good mileage from this logo. I certainly like its potential a lot more than the New York Philarmonic which many people on this site seemed to adore (yes, I know many hated it as well).
On Apr.13.2009 at 09:35 PM
Bill Dawson (XK9)’s comment is:
Beautiful. Simple. Less is more (more or less).
On Apr.13.2009 at 09:49 PM
Serviceburo’s comment is:
While it doesn't get perfect marks for me, it's much more cohesive than the original mark and despite the missing chunks of the m's and the o, I think the unified type is a huge improvement over the mess that was the original logo.
From following Alexander on Twitter, I get the impression that he is more of a motion graphics guy, so I would of course be interested in seeing how this animates, as I imagine it would more clearly elaborate his ideas on this piece.
On Apr.13.2009 at 11:02 PM
greyory’s comment is:
just at a quick glance, I would like to assume that the M's were chopped to give them more "sound wave" look
as for the O, I believe they were just going for a sort of rotate symmetry (does that make any sense?) from the C
however, now that I look at it closer, the C does have a strange width (curving out) near the end points and doesn't directly correlate with the O (which just looks pretty even across the entire shape)
On Apr.14.2009 at 12:31 AM
jdh’s comment is:
thank you designscene:
"'Much more' just became 'much less', or a 'little less'? It communicates the opposite of what it means."
On Apr.14.2009 at 12:05 PM
NICCAI’s comment is:
Personally, I don't get it. On its own, I don't really see how this redesign stands up on its own. I get that they may be trying to drop "music", but I think it is over-designed at best. Is there any relevance to the U and the E being the same color?
On Apr.14.2009 at 05:32 PM
Cory Bujnowicz’s comment is:
I was watching last night (Entourage, yay) and noticed the logo in the bottom right cleanly animated to transform from "Much More" to "Much Music" (at least, that's what I thought it was if I remember correctly).
On Apr.14.2009 at 06:54 PM
Josh P’s comment is:
@JeanC: Yeah, I think that's why. Maybe their music channel license is about to expire. They hardly have any music on anymore anyway. So I think it's possible the name change reflects new programming choices. Maybe MuchMusic will start to air more music-related programming, while MuchMore will air programming that is simply related to music -- for example, movies starring Cher, VH1 reality shows, etc. This makes sense to me, but overall I thnk it's a confusing move. Pretty colours though. The old design was so 1998.
On Apr.14.2009 at 08:02 PM
Josh P’s comment is:
I forgot to add this in my previous comment -- you can see an example of how the new logo animates on muchmore.ca. Just click Play on the video player to the right. It seems as if the parts of the M's that are cut off become connected to multi-coloured wires that spread over the screen. Not bad, I guess... but the O is still left with a hole.
On Apr.14.2009 at 08:05 PM
Glenn Sakamoto’s comment is:
Music to my eyes!
On Apr.15.2009 at 11:30 PM
Mongoose’s comment is:
Certainly a more colorful version, that's for sure, and more eye-catching. The old one... agreed awful. Even if they were trying for a P.T.Bridgeport fontacular extravaganza, which is the only thing I can think they were aiming for.. no soap, radio.
So enough colors in a pleasing enough blend for me, but the letterform tricks.. just don't work on me. If they're trying to stair-step the 'M's along with the overall logo, it's not as clever as they intended. It's either not enough taken off or too much off, and I'm not quite sure which. Ditto for having the 'O' be a rotated 'C', a good attempt but not quite there.
Still, it's unquestionably brighter, better, and uncluttered a design; I give it a B+ on the strength of improvement and colors.
--Mongoose
On Apr.16.2009 at 12:34 PM
Joe G.’s comment is:
@ N.S.
In your post, you've made 2 false assumtions. Firstly, you assume that I think the redesign is successful, merely because I questioned the need for graphic form to reference meaning beyond itself. Second, you ASSume that I have no design education because I can openly pose such questions. Sometimes design is purely form, and that's ok. Will it stand the test of time? Time will tell.
Joe G., BDes
On Apr.16.2009 at 02:54 PM
DJensen’s comment is:
As with its parent station, MMM now plays fewer and fewer music videos, and more and more tenuously-music-related movies and reality shows. The whole brand/network went down the toilet a decade ago in attempting to imitate MTV, and shows no hope of recovering now that CTV Globemedia owns Much *and* MTV Canada.
On Apr.17.2009 at 06:36 PM
Simon L’s comment is:
So Much is hot and More is cold! How gray fit in colorful? look like scores to me. As the old one there is really to much contrast in the typographie.
Talking about the old disco ball of Much. The French branch Musique Plus did the change. The timelessness concept is here but i'm not quite sure how it reach the demographic.
On Apr.25.2009 at 12:24 PM
Bob W’s comment is:
http://www.cartype.com/pics/6434/full/alfa-romeo_mito_emblem_08.jpg
This is a link to the Alpha Romeo Mito logo. I just thought it looked exceptionally similar when I saw the two. Thoughts?
On Apr.29.2009 at 01:14 AM
Kathryn’s comment is:
It looks like it has been said already, but I would guess that by leaving the word 'music' out of the new logo, what they're getting at is the station is going from 'Much More Music' to 'Much More Than Music'...
I think cropping the M characters give the overall logo the shape of a parallelogram and almost balances the H and the E of the opposite end. Doesn't explain the O though.
A fresh and needed update as far as I'm concerned. It looks nice on air.
On May.16.2009 at 09:08 PM
ghazaleh’s comment is:
I don't watch much TV, but I noticed it the other week. Personally, I'd have to agree with Armin. I don't see any reason for the slicing. There is no concept. The old logo at least made sense to the vibe of the channel. I remember watching it when I wanted to hear more softer, older tunes and pop up videos when I didn't want to watch MuchMusic. Now that I don't watch any TV, and have no clue what direction the channel is headed, I think it's pretty lame to even go modern and try to be another music channel. We have MTV in Canada now and have always had MuchMusic, which is almost dead. I think the whole music TV industry is dead and no branding job is going to save its day. How can you make up for shitty music and music videos nowadays.
On May.25.2009 at 11:53 AM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
