If you look at the world of metal from a non "chart-topping" perspective, you'll see how ubiquitous logos are. Black and Death metal in particular have insanely complex, beautiful logos that become forever associated with the band and stick with them for life.

Your right.  In doing my research for these graphs i found many a metal band that had logo's.  They aren't mainstream or even above a baby band, although most bands consider their name and font a logo.  When I complied these graphs I was going by something that is easily recognizable.   From even 15 feet away it would be hard to understand what the band name was as most Metal and hardcore and punk bands use very gothic or unusual fonts in most cases.  I was looking for something you could look at and in an instant know that defined the band.  

Some of the blues musicians voted both ways I guess?

Voted?

109%

That wasn't based on votes, that was based on the percentage of bands I researched, but yes, it's actually suppossed to be 76 and 24, thanks for catching!

just updated.  

/paul

How much should a nice logo cost in late 2012?

Anyone got one made recently?

Actually, this is a lead up to the next in depth article on Logo's coming after this one.  That one will have your answers you seek!

depends on who makes it and who it is for.

Can cost from a few hundreds to several thousands, or more.

In music, it is probably not that expensive. Often, musicians have friends who can draw, so it is generally free in that case (which is how we made them in my 3 bands in the past, asking freinds or doing it ourselves).

An artist must change, and the logo will have to change too.

It is more interesting to develop an overall quality visual concept for your music and band rather than a logo (because the band, their music, is *not* a brand, but a concept, and it must be changeable, it is not like a stupid tatoo).

Do artists need logos? Need them for what? To be successful? To top the charts?

I would be more interested in data that shows how a successful visual identity corresponds to merchandise sales data, rather than album sales.

And the definition of a logo seems pretty subjective. Does the name Weezer in lowercase century gothic count as a logo?

Yes it does, but they change their size of Weezer and fonts through time, and they do have a ubiquitous logo.  I choose bands that keep their brand constant through the time or at least from when they really take their success to a bigger level and a lot more then less know the performer or bands name.

Sounds very subjective.

Actually, it wasn't, I researched 1400 bands from baby all the way up, I did research other genres like jazz and classical and such, but the numbers were so low for who had logo's.  I think everyone that has a name has a brand, but is it a logo?  Thats what I had to define.

Quick, what do the following images bring forth in your mind musically:

The Seal of the President of the United States

Four men crossing the street single file

A naked baby swimming towards a dollar bill

Five men holding a longboard

A lightning bolt hitting the US Capitol

The letters D and K

The letters V and H

A circle with wings

Icarus

The colors red, green, yellow and black

Immediately you think of certain bands, a certain sound, a certain brand.  Just like how a movie is nothing without a soundtrack, music needs visual representation to be truly memorable.  Any little thing you use to be more memorable is a good thing, as long as it doesn't interfere or detract from the music.  Music paints a picture in people's minds, so putting a visual that represents that music out there will always help.

Artists are essentially brands, bands much like institutions. If no one is elected to be the "face" of your band, a logo may serve to be that familiar visual, that symbol for your sound, although it is less personal. Individual artists, (like many pop musicians) if they have a cute face, would rather just put that on display..! The point of all this branding is to get people to remember the artist by giving the artist a strong, unique identity.

But artists, like companies, are often rebranded and given a new sound and look - logos change (as well as the hairdressers). The name of the artist stays the same (or they're a new artist). The research here needs a few more parameters... For instance, what constitutes a "logo"? Does a person's name in a particular font on one album cover count as a logo? Or are we talking about consistency in use? Is a logo restricted to type, or can it be an image?

So, which acts would be considered to not have logos? 

Acho que as logos ajudam os artistas sim

Ha--jazz is not even on the list. But NO to logos and the evil "branding."

People probably recognize a Lady Gaga headshot almost as easily as the McDonald's arches. If an artist's face is well known than that is the visual branding and no logo needed.

www.Betweenthelinernotes.com